Kris Osborn, National Interest: How NATO Plans to Really Crush Russia in a War (Not What You Think)
It's not just NATO leaders and soldiers talking to each other. It's their platforms.
Should the U.S. suddenly find itself thrust into a massive, full-scale war with Russia across the European continent, Pentagon leaders would likely seek to immediately leverage NATO’s full arsenal of capabilities.
For instance, a Polish F-35 might come across time-sensitive targets such as Russian ships in the Baltic Sea, and instantly send coordinates to a U.S. Navy destroyer operating within range to fire an anti-ship missile. Perhaps that same Polish F-35 is flying with Danish and Norweigian F-35s while controlling forward operating drones from the cockpit, one of which discovers Russian air defenses near the Ukrainian border? Perhaps the allied F-35s, connected by a common data link, are able to quickly send targeting data to U.S. Army ground units armed with Long Range Precision Fires? This is precisely the kind of warfare scenario now being envisioned and pursued by the Pentagon and its NATO allies.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: If such a conflict does happen, it will not be a conventional war. Within 24 hours we will be living in a nuclear apocalypse.
15 comments:
Nuclear apocalypse would be good. Serious
I'm not sure about nuclear apocalypse. Russia will not go to its end only for few eastern Europe countries.
Not so fast with the nuclear solution.
Wars can be fought and won in a matter of minutes using computer network warriors. Shutdown or disable power plants, key manufacturing facilities, government networks, military bases, fossil fuel production and distribution. Take the war to homes across America and watch total social breakdown occur.
No need for nukes.
Wars can be fought and won in a matter of minutes using computer network warriors
And if some military networks are hardened to EMP or viruses and they see the country coming to a standstill due to a viral first strike, they launch the nukes anyway.
So so sorry to rain on your parade.
I understand Russia also has a deadmans switch to ensure mutual destruction. But China... Our military strategy, from what i have read, is to fight them without winning too much to cause them to nuke us...
foto explains Russia power
MAD still applies , there will be no nuclear war lol
Always a need for nukes.
Guys, not to worry.
In case of war, we have powerful inventions such as participation awards, critical race theory, book clubs with obese women and a whole set of food delivery apps... the Russians will not dare to attack such powerful warriors
cute but no brass ring. We also have the largest nuke stockpile in the world and huge military and navy.
Mock what you will but why not go elsewhere if what goes on in America bothers you? Or, if you want to stay, join Proud Boys and QAnon, and Oathkeepers. They love people like you
Then why are you here? All you're good at is sniveling.
i know you are but what am I?
In the United States, political polarization has checked efforts to enact even modest federal climate change legislation for decades. Out of frustration, one might even say desperation, some activists have looked to the world of private investing and major corporations—yes, even oil companies—to press a climate change agenda. And those efforts have been somewhat successful. On the one hand, there are now reasonably large investment funds that, through their investment criteria, in effect take resources away from companies that have poor environmental track records and reward those who have better records. On the other hand, activists have also purchased stock in some of the major polluters and used their status as shareholders to push shareholder resolutions and fight for seats as outside members of the boards of directors. Remarkably, a third activist was just elected to the Exxon board.
This strategy should now be extended to the fight to preserve democracy in the United States. All across the United States, Republican majorities in state legislatures are pushing to restrict ballot access, and even to politicize (in their partisan favor) how disputes over the outcomes of close elections will be resolved. Distinguished political scientists see the United States as being on the verge of slipping from a flawed but real democracy to a nation where power will reside in an essentially anti-democratic (small d), even authoritarian party, regardless of what the majority of Americans think and desire. Of course, the Biden administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress are trying to enact federal legislation that would override anti-democratic legislation at the state level. But the odds of such legislation actually being enacted are slipping by the day. And if it is not enacted soon, state-level restrictions on ballot access and state-level gerrymandering could ensure Republican control of Congress as a minority party for years to come.
So far, corporations have been relatively quiet about the fact that the United States, at the hand of one of two major political parties, may be on the verge of losing its democratic system of government. It is true that Delta and Coca-Cola expressed their disappointment over Georgia’s adoption of an anti–voting rights law, and Major League Baseball went further, moving its All-Star Game out of Georgia. But there continues to be relative silence from major corporations around voting rights, even as bills restricting voting edge toward passage in dozens of states. That quiet is explicable. Big business and the Republican Party have had a long, close relationship, and the majority of CEOs probably are (or until recently, were) Republicans. More to the point, CEOs care about making money, and especially their companies’ short-term profitability and stock performance, and so it makes sense for them to try to avoid alienating Republican leaders in Mar-a-Lago, Congress, and the state legislatures.
Which is why corporations must be pushed to take a stand. Both through “democratically responsible” investment funds and shareholder activism, investors can push corporations to state loudly for all to hear which voting measures they approve and which they denounce. Investors could push for corporations to issue “democracy” impact statements, which would detail the corporations’ political contributions, relevant lobbying efforts, and other measures that affect the fight for preserving democracy in the United States. Investors might push corporations to commit not to make direct or indirect campaign contributions to any politician or state party that supports anti–voting rights legislation, or federal candidates who oppose measures that would protect democracy such as the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Admittedly, determining which investor demands on corporations would be productive in terms of the fight for democracy is not straightforward or obvious. But that is all the more reason why the effort to make those determinations needs to begin right now.
That's easy a joke. Where's the Pew poll info, coward.
Liar
Post a Comment