Thread: Should we be on an industrial war Footing?

Should we deplete our armor, ammo, readiness, and drain the strategic petroleum reserve for political purposes?

Or should we be preparing for hard times, like the persistent drought, fuel, supply chain, and food crisis?

I've been talking "victory garden" for years, are people too lazy to do it? Cut back on fuel consumption? I did this month by pluming in my outdoor wood boiler, was that a waste of time and recourses?

Am I the only one that notices the clear and present dangers we're in on all sides omnidirectional?

Here's a video with a good view from someone else's eyes, a man that lived through all changes and sees all the corruption throughout this ubiquitous social degradation.

I only saw a glimpse of the world he's from, when boys had short hair, girls had long. It's no wonder I casted myself away from any and all social expectations coming from this reprobate society, anything else would be utter insanity.

The last of the Mohegans:

https://youtube.com/shorts/OyBU1N42ou0?feature=share

Originally Posted by mgtower

Am I the only one that notices the clear and present dangers we're in on all sides omnidirectional?

Everyone gets it. No-one cares. They ain't going to let you keep your victory garden potatoes anyway: check out what happened to the Kulaks.

Originally Posted by Mr Wombat

Everyone gets it. No-one cares. They ain't going to let you keep your victory garden potatoes anyway: check out what happened to the Kulaks.

This is still America, if they want my potatoes, there's plenty of lead to go along with them, besides, Bolsheviks make great fertilizer! Look at Ukraine!

A comment I recently read about the war in Ukraine was "The Americans and NATO are willing to fight Russia right down to the last Ukrainian".

It may appear the West is weakening itself by giving away so many weapons and ammo but the West has an infinite capacity to make more. Not to mention they are battle testing their equipment.

Russia will be a spent force soon, many young men have left the country to avoid the draft, many have been killed or crippled. A huge percentage of their tanks and other military equipment has been destroyed. If WW3 were to start tomorrow China would be fighting the West mostly alone.

Originally Posted by Kryptic

A comment I recently read about the war in Ukraine was "The Americans and NATO are willing to fight Russia right down to the last Ukrainian".

It may appear the West is weakening itself by giving away so many weapons and ammo but the West has an infinite capacity to make more. Not to mention they are battle testing their equipment.

Russia will be a spent force soon, many young men have left the country to avoid the draft, many have been killed or crippled. A huge percentage of their tanks and other military equipment has been destroyed. If WW3 were to start tomorrow China would be fighting the West mostly alone.

That's exactly how I see it!

Now that we're balls deep, loosing isn't an option, it'll only embolden our enemies, no doubt China doesn't want to test their tofu military, it's better if they appear strong than test all the holes in their swiss cheese armor.

The United States has spent more money on Ukraine than the entire annual Russian military budget.

From a pragmatic viewpoint, I'm glad our equipment is performing well on the battlefield, had it not, WW-III would erupt throughout the entire world.

If NATO and Ukraine advance into Russian territory it would trigger doomsday for all of us, as it would if any nuclear superpower lost its conventional forces.

Russia signed an agreement to "protect" Ukraine if they gave up their nuclear weapons at the end of the cold war, and so did the US. Therefore I cannot say we're on the wrong side of that war. If Ukraine looses to Russia, it will trigger nuclear proliferation among developing countries furthering nuclear instability and the likelihood of triggering a nuclear war.

The US is on DEFCON 3, Europe and most the Eastern world is on DEFCON 2, these are levels not seen since the early 60's, it's not unimaginable that someone cocks the hammer to DEFCON 1, after that it's doomsday and the day after...

Originally Posted by mgtower

That's exactly how I see it!

Now that we're balls deep, loosing isn't an option, it'll only embolden our enemies, no doubt China doesn't want to test their tofu military, it's better if they appear strong than test all the holes in their swiss cheese armor.

The United States has spent more money on Ukraine than the entire annual Russian military budget.

From a pragmatic viewpoint, I'm glad our equipment is performing well on the battlefield, had it not, WW-III would erupt throughout the entire world.

If NATO and Ukraine advance into Russian territory it would trigger doomsday for all of us, as it would if any nuclear superpower lost its conventional forces.

Russia signed an agreement to "protect" Ukraine if they gave up their nuclear weapons at the end of the cold war, and so did the US. Therefore I cannot say we're on the wrong side of that war. If Ukraine looses to Russia, it will trigger nuclear proliferation among developing countries furthering nuclear instability and the likelihood of triggering a nuclear war.

The US is on DEFCON 3, Europe and most the Eastern world is on DEFCON 2, these are levels not seen since the early 60's, it's not unimaginable that someone cocks the hammer to DEFCON 1, after that it's doomsday and the day after...

Something else I came across was that the American's always assumed that the Russians were on a par with themselves in terms of military might and capability. This Ukraine war has showed the exact opposite. Russian soldiers aren't trusted and are poorly trained and equipped. So this means General's are on the front lines and are getting killed. Their soldiers don't even know why they are in Ukraine.

I would take a guess and say the Chinese military is much the same as they would be modelled on the old USSR. All they have is weight of numbers and to try and steam roll their way through regardless of losses.

Everything Putin has stated he was scared of he has now created. Sweden and Finland have joined NATO. NATO is beefing itself up after 2 decades of complacency. Ukraine will be in NATO once they have driven Russia out and Russia will lose the Crimea which it could have kept if Putin didn't invade in the first place. Putin loves shouting Nazi but he is the one behaving like a Nazi.

Personally, I'm not worried about Russia or China starting a nuclear war. They understand the ramifications of such an act.
I'm more worried about morons like the NK Panda who might get ahead of himself and step on his own genitals trying to assert his capabilities in an international arena.
Where's Seal Team 6 when you need them? I guess Odumdum killed most of them but what about their replacements?

Originally Posted by Kryptic

Something else I came across was that the American's always assumed that the Russians were on a par with themselves in terms of military might and capability. This Ukraine war has showed the exact opposite.

Yes, but if Americans (and other NATO countries) had been told the truth, would they be so willing to spend so much on the military budget? How many proxy wars have been fought in the name of asserting democracy where democracy was never an objective?

Fear has been used by nearly every leader to convince the masses to follow them since the beginning of time. The threat of communism was likely the longest running fear campaign... Remember all the new security after the 911 terrorist attacks? Another fear campaign to justify "Homeland security" and more powers to the FBI etc. The last big fear campaign was Covid (still going on some places), "Get the shot or you will die" was a popular opening line at the start this pandemic.

Was there ever a real threat by the USSR on America or any other NATO country during the cold war? Or was the USSR just running scared bluffing themselves to make it appear they were a threat to keep NATO in check? The Western politicians for years beat the drum of "Evil" USSR to the masses for more military spending. How many kickbacks did they receive for awarding $million/billion contracts?

As with most things I have been told to believe there is more to the story than what is the common narrative. The most common one talked about here is TRP truths or female nature.... Girls are not "Made of sugar and spice and everything nice". During The Cold War, USSR was struggling to feed it's own citizens, was it really a threat to the Western countries?

Politicians have become professional liars...

Originally Posted by RustyNuts

Was there ever a real threat by the USSR on America or any other NATO country during the cold war? Or was the USSR just running scared bluffing themselves to make it appear they were a threat to keep NATO in check? The Western politicians for years beat the drum of "Evil" USSR to the masses for more military spending. How many kickbacks did they receive for awarding $million/billion contracts?

The Cuban missile crisis came pretty close. It's also true that for decades the Soviets spent stupid money on defense. In fact, military overspending probably did more to do them in than anything else.

You need to remember what the Nazis did to Russia in WW II. The Ruski's weren't ready when it started, and they came close to losing the war because of it. You can bet the survivors remembered, and in the future they were going to be ready. Did they really want to take over the world? I reckon some of them wanted to, but they never had a big enough advantage to worth trying.

So, we did need a lot to keep the Ruski's at bay. However, you are right about all the flag waving patriots who decided to cash in on all those fat military contracts.

Even more slimy is the way big American corporation's cook up wars just so they can grab a bunch of easy money. How many bucks went down the drain so the Bush's cooperate friends could cash in? It's not just the Bush's to blame here either, almost anyone in the White House did the same, and it goes back to at least WW II.

Originally Posted by frog

The Cuban missile crisis came pretty close. It's also true that for decades the Soviets spent stupid money on defense. In fact, military overspending probably did more to do them in than anything else.

I see the Cuban Missile Crisis as a retaliation for what Nato was doing in Europe. Like a game of chess, Nato was building missile silos wherever they could, USSR used their friends in Cuba as a "WTF? You want to play that game? Lets go!!" America didn't like that, USSR backed down.... And if the truth was known America likely had some concessions also, just didn't want to show weakness to the public.

Whatever information (NEWS) they are feeding you it will be only what they want you to hear, goes for both sides of any dispute... It's easier to bury the truth in lies than to own up to government corruption.

Stand up for Ukraine, the place has been a cesspool of corruption since the fall of the Iron Curtain, this "War" is just the next level up and making it all public... How much debt will people put up with?

Originally Posted by RustyNuts

I see the Cuban Missile Crisis as a retaliation for what Nato was doing in Europe. Like a game of chess, Nato was building missile silos wherever they could, USSR used their friends in Cuba as a "WTF? You want to play that game? Lets go!!" America didn't like that, USSR backed down.... And if the truth was known America likely had some concessions also, just didn't want to show weakness to the public.

Too right you are. We had missiles in Turkey, and I believe the crisis in Cuba led to their removal. But it was definitely a close call for the whole world.

Cuba is just too close to America to have a bunch of nukes pointed at you. Even the older missiles back then could have reached most of the US in minutes. In that case action was needed. But were most of the wars we drummed up necessary? What does Afghanistan have that we would want? Nothing I can think of.

Originally Posted by frog

What does Afghanistan have that we would want? Nothing I can think of.

About $3 billion worth of military weapons and equipment that was left behind

For hundreds of years, the Russian approach to war was to absorb an invasion, then counterattack with massive numbers. Then, the approach was modified to have buffer zones like the Warsaw Pact countries.

They lost Eastern Europe, and NATO has expanded east.

Peter Zeihan argues that this is the generational window is closing, and this will be the last decade that Russia can engage in a major conflict.

There was a massive "baby bust" during the 1990s and the early 2000's. In the economic downsizing after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russians just didn't want to marry and have children. A lack of men being born in the 1990s means a lack of draft age men today.

Putin *has* to go to war now, while gas prices are high, there is senile fool in the the White House, and he still has a large enough cohort of males to go to war with.

Look how they have had to mobilize 300k two months ago, and have to do it again this month. When they say the troops are "reservists" they do not mean troops like the US National Guard or the UK Territorial Army that meet every month to train. The Russians are grabbing people who served for a couple of years, and were discharged up to 8 years ago, and 'reservists' who were given a basic training and only drilled once a year, if that.

The weakness of the Russian Army is the lack of Russians and corruption.

Example: tanks and armored personnel carriers roll in Ukraine. Granted, Russian tanks have automated loaders, so they only need three men to crew a tank. But if those tanks run into entrenched infantry, their infantry fighting vehicles are supposed to disgorge a squad of riflemen to act as body guards for the tanks. In some units, the infantry vehicles had a driver and a commander, maybe a gunner, and the back part with the riflemen was empty.