Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops (1 Viewer)

[Dannytoro1]

Are you of the opinion that the US did not field first strike weapons? The trident II with an estimated CEP of less than 100 meters (actual data still classified) is capable of hitting a missile silo and is therefor a first strike capable weapon.

Trident II came very late to the ball game. Aside from the point they never left the counter strike deployment regime. Meanwhile SS-18's can still drop either 8MT or 750kt mirvs well within 500 meters Another year or two and Sarmat will enter service with 10 large or 16 small warheads.

Lastly Russia continues to field all aspects of new triad weapons. Trident is firmly mired in 1972. Our stuff is old. Even D5LEP is approaching a decade old now.

 

[Tangmo]

Tangmo:

Rowers?

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy

It's my euphemism for uniquely American fascist in the early 21st century.

They came out of their fascist closet most strongly, prominently and stridently after Putin Their Hero returned to the Russian presidency in 2012 with his new agenda of being tsar for the novorossiya in the world.

They with the Republican Party have been busy Making America Russia Instead since. Trump's importance is that he was delivered to 'em by Putin Their Hero. So: no Trump = no Putin which means catastrophe for 'em. In a word, fail. Boo-hoo.

I spent a lot of time in Bangkok working with Australians who use the metaphor freely to reference a low class white schlep who rows the king's boat, in whatever it is and for whom ever. A rower might be a teacher, a cop, a soldier and so forth. Aussies take pride in calling it the Australian sense of humor, given their origins and what they did before they were put to populating Down Under. And since. And all of that.

Aussies I still know have spoken of giving me a parade for it but I've discouraged 'em -- so far at least yet who knows eh. Those guyz can be pretty convincing in certain thingys. Me, I'd rather march myself which is what I did do. A lot btw. And before you get all excited, one can't row and march simultaneously. They're mutually exclusive.

 

[Dannytoro1]

Gen. Maxwell Taylor resigned as chief of staff of Army because he objected to Eisenhower building so many missiles Taylor considered Ike was ignoring conventional forces. In fact JFK as Potus built up conventional forces because he knew his 1960 campaign that alleged a "missle gap" between the USSR and the USA was baloney. Many voters ate the baloney as it was served up however. Even now some people consider that baloney a delicacy as we see in your post.

Do you even know what your talking about? In Eisenhower's time they built so many missiles because they were new and often bad. "Snark Infested Waters" was real. Navaho Cruise missile was so expensive it's failure spawned the Atlas ICBM engine program. Regulus and Jupiter were issued but not very trustworthy. We had scads of programs just to get a reliable system.

I'd rather have baloney then the rancid shoe leather your clearly chewing on....lol

 

[hanger4]

Again, you haven't read it, you wouldn't know. Here, let me help you.

Mueller Found Evidence of Collusion - The Moscow Project
Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion” - Just Security

And not single indictment concerning collusion.

Again, how does one collude without coordination ??

 

[hanger4]

Diversion? You're the one who brought it up...

Lordy, I guess examples of unsubstantiated anonymous sources was over your head.

 

[avatar]

Trident II came very late to the ball game. Aside from the point they never left the counter strike deployment regime. Meanwhile SS-18's can still drop either 8MT or 750kt mirvs well within 500 meters Another year or two and Sarmat will enter service with 10 large or 16 small warheads.

Lastly Russia continues to field all aspects of new triad weapons. Trident is firmly mired in 1972. Our stuff is old. Even D5LEP is approaching a decade old now.

It's old because it's adequate and it's good enough. The Russians field lots of new Popular Science weapons but their economy can't support them. Even the vaunted S-400 has proven to be somewhat inadequate in the face of Israeli airpower. It's really a hollow bear that lives in the former Soviet Union.

 

[Court Jester]

Putin is trying to stick it to us anywhere he can.

Isn't that his job? And isn't it our job to be prepared for that?

You think we didn't do the same to them when the CIA was backing Taliban fighters killing Soviet soldiers during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

 

[Tangmo]

Do you even know what your talking about? In Eisenhower's time they built so many missiles because they were new and often bad. "Snark Infested Waters" was real. Navaho Cruise missile was so expensive it's failure spawned the Atlas ICBM engine program. Regulus and Jupiter were issued but not very trustworthy. We had scads of programs just to get a reliable system.

I'd rather have baloney then the rancid shoe leather your clearly chewing on....lol

No matter how you slice it it's still baloney.

I mentioned Gen. Maxwell Taylor resigned as chief of staff of Army because he objected to Ike's obsession to out-missile the USSR. Taylor objected to the downplaying of conventional forces in favor of a gross overkill by US missiles.

There's more to it yet.

Once JFK became Potus he called Gen. Taylor back to active service and appointed him chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Gen. Taylor who we know commanded 82nd Airborne at Normandy in June 1944 and onward focused on conventional forces for JFK. You can haggle all you want about this missile and that missile but I don't haggle because in this instance Gen. Taylor and Pres. Kennedy represented the Pentagon point of view that USA had the advantage over the USSR in missile delivery systems.

After all, we went to the moon starting in 1969 while Russian moon rockets flamed out before the Russian Soviets quit at it, ie, yielded to the moon bound USA. The Saturn V moon rocket was 36 stories high and remains the most powerful rocket ever flown successfully.

Yeah I remember watching the Army Redstone blow up on the launchpad live on b&w tv back then when I was a kid. I also remember watching the moon landing live on b&w tv and I remember the Russian Soviet Union collapsing of its own dead weight in 1991. So I'm not going to squabble with you about this missile and that missile when the big picture is that Gen. Taylor and Pres. Kennedy were right in their policy prescriptions. And vision.

 

[dave8383]

Isn't that his job? And isn't it our job to be prepared for that?

You think we didn't do the same to them when the CIA was backing Taliban fighters killing Soviet soldiers during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

Is this what you mean by being prepared?




and...........

Trump says he was not briefed on reported bounties against US troops

Trump denies being briefed on intelligence that Russians tried to bribe Taliban fighters to kill US troops - CNNPolitics

 

[Tangmo]

Trident II came very late to the ball game. Aside from the point they never left the counter strike deployment regime. Meanwhile SS-18's can still drop either 8MT or 750kt mirvs well within 500 meters Another year or two and Sarmat will enter service with 10 large or 16 small warheads.

Lastly Russia continues to field all aspects of new triad weapons. Trident is firmly mired in 1972. Our stuff is old. Even D5LEP is approaching a decade old now.

Here's what you're missing...


Pentagon To Spend $1 Trillion To Upgrade Its Nuclear Arsenal
November 17, 2014

Pentagon To Spend $1 Trillion To Upgrade Its Nuclear Arsenal

 

[Tangmo]

Isn't that his job? And isn't it our job to be prepared for that?

You think we didn't do the same to them when the CIA was backing Taliban fighters killing Soviet soldiers during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

Good guys vs bad guys.

There's no equivalency morally or legally as you might suggest.

We're the good guys btw.

 

[beerftw]

Putin is a thug who does not care about human life and has stated many times that the U.S. is his enemy. Putting a bounty on American lives is just the kind of thing Putin would do just like Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers.

Videos suggest Russian government may be arming Taliban - CNN

Can you link when putin stated the us as the enemy? I tried googling it, it came up with nothin.

 

[Dannytoro1]

No matter how you slice it it's still baloney.

I mentioned Gen. Maxwell Taylor resigned as chief of staff of Army because he objected to Ike's obsession to out-missile the USSR. Taylor objected to the downplaying of conventional forces in favor of a gross overkill by US missiles.

There's more to it yet.

Once JFK became Potus he called Gen. Taylor back to active service and appointed him chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Gen. Taylor who we know commanded 82nd Airborne at Normandy in June 1944 and onward focused on conventional forces for JFK. You can haggle all you want about this missile and that missile but I don't haggle because in this instance Gen. Taylor and Pres. Kennedy represented the Pentagon point of view that USA had the advantage over the USSR in missile delivery systems.

After all, we went to the moon starting in 1969 while Russian moon rockets flamed out before the Russian Soviets quit at it, ie, yielded to the moon bound USA. The Saturn V moon rocket was 36 stories high and remains the most powerful rocket ever flown successfully.

Yeah I remember watching the Army Redstone blow up on the launchpad live on b&w tv back then when I was a kid. I also remember watching the moon landing live on b&w tv and I remember the Russian Soviet Union collapsing of its own dead weight in 1991. So I'm not going to squabble with you about this missile and that missile when the big picture is that Gen. Taylor and Pres. Kennedy were right in their policy prescriptions. And vision.

Maxwell Taylor was squaloring for more money at a time we were swimming in WW2 war surplus. The fact was the Easy Eights and T-26 to M47's were more then up to the task of handling combat. And the fact is US Army development was awash in a rudderless direction. Few 1950's era Army weapons proved worthy of large scale deployment. The M48 being the sole exception and an incremental evolution in the T26 series. All of the early APC's were riddled with flaws and bad design. The best was a gianormous beast to large to hide. That was the way until the M113 materialized for the 1960's.

Not that I think Taylor was in anyway superior to the Supreme Allied Commander in any metric. Especially being he was a yes man for the hideous McNamara and Kennedy.

 

[Dannytoro1]

Here's what you're missing...


Pentagon To Spend $1 Trillion To Upgrade Its Nuclear Arsenal
November 17, 2014

Pentagon To Spend $1 Trillion To Upgrade Its Nuclear Arsenal

There is nothing to miss. One Trillion to bandaid old systems long overdue for replacement. And a new B-21 Bomber built around the worst Bomber ever to enter service, the B-2. Which saw terrible availability rates. The bulk to address our very badly outdated warheads. Not only have we peace dividend-ed our top nuclear physicists into retirement, but most of the needed metallurgists are long gone too. We had bad problems making warheads in the 1980's. It is not getting any better. Power PC processors! OMG!

 

[Court Jester]

Good guys vs bad guys.

There's no equivalency morally or legally as you might suggest.

We're the good guys btw.

What I said has nothing to do with good guys vs bad guys, it has to do with how the game is played--- like it or not.

So you believe that just because YOU believe the Russians are the bad guys (and I'm not saying they aren't), that THEY have to accept that--- even as THEY BELIEVE they are the good guys???? Wow, never knew it was that simple. We just inform all of the bad guys they are bad and then expect them to not do what they think is in their best interests just because WESAYSO.

This is why they call it WAR. No difference in a hot war or a cold war, the clash of ideologies has both sides believing they are right and the other guy wrong. Like I said, our CIA operatives did pretty much the same things during the Soviet Afghanistan war. We supported in fact some really"bad guys" (the Taliban) against the other "bad guys" (the Soviets). But the truth is many of the Soviet soldiers the Taliban killed were no different than our soldiers--- just men following orders and serving their nations--- RIGHT OR WRONG.

So explain to me again about "moral equivalency" when WE our side---through the CIA was supporting the Taliban? Do you now see how a Russian might look at this and call us hypocrites?

Like I said, it is PUTIN'S JOB to do what he does. He isn't our ally, he isn't a trading partner, Russia is our adversary like it or not and your selective outrage is duly noted.

 

[iguanaman]

Can you link when putin stated the us as the enemy? I tried googling it, it came up with nothin.

His actions speak louder than words. Perhaps you should read our own Senate report on Russian aggression from 2018 then perhaps you will believe them.

Dear Colleagues: For years, Vladimir Putin's government has
engaged in a relentless assault to undermine democracy and the
rule of law in Europe and the United States. Mr. Putin's
Kremlin employs an asymmetric arsenal that includes military
invasions, cyberattacks, disinformation, support for fringe
political groups, and the weaponization of energy resources,
organized crime, and corruption. The Kremlin has refined the
use of these tools over time and these attacks have intensified
in scale and complexity across Europe. If the United States
fails to work with urgency to address this complex and growing
threat, the regime in Moscow will become further emboldened. It
will continue to develop and refine its arsenal to use on
democracies around the world, including against U.S. elections
in 2018 and 2020.

PUTIN'S ASYMMETRIC ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY IN RUSSIA AND EUROPE: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY

 

[Airyaman]

Lordy, I guess examples of unsubstantiated anonymous sources was over your head.

If you say so.

 

[anatta]

Putin built Trump to withdraw as many US forces from the world as he could, to separate USA allies and partners from the USA, and to kiss up to every dictator tyrant there is.

You bring home hundreds or tens of thousands of troops and you're going to be fighting terrorists over here instead of our troops fighting terrorists over there. You might check with Putin on this because I'm sure he is bold enough and shameless enough to vouch for it. Trump will of course call it a Democratic Party conspiracy against him along with the nooze media.

I'm hoping meanwhile you're only oblivious of this rather than committed to it as are the Putin Trump Rowers.

withdrawal from where?? Syria? WTF can we do in Syria? nothing -our force is so small Erdogan didn't even consider us a deterent when he went over and cleared the Kurds along th Syrian border.

You just write blandishments -nothing specific,, a waste of my time further

 

[anatta]

So why weren't they?

NYTimes claims it was a formal assessment _i have my doubts. it's just raw unsubstantated INTEL

 

[lurchadams]

OMG, the NYT printed this so it must be true, just as when they printed that Russia shot down MH17.

NYT always prints the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! :lol:

Trump has already acknowledged it and is denying he was briefed on it - which is a bunch of crap. Sorry, my trump-worshiping friend, but as usual, you're on the wrong side of history.

Trump denies being briefed on intelligence that Russians tried to bribe Taliban fighters to kill US troops - CNNPolitics

 

[lurchadams]

Putin is trying to stick it to us anywhere he can.




Russia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says - The New York Times

To the right-wing, Russia stopped being our enemy when trump was elected. Why? Because they know that although it's destroying our democracy, Russia helps keep Republicans in power.

Goodbye military support of trump. Hopefully, those who've denied that trump is a threat in the past will come to their senses now.

 

[j brown's body]

To the right-wing, Russia stopped being our enemy when trump was elected. Why? Because they know that although it's destroying our democracy, Russia helps keep Republicans in power.

Goodbye military support of trump. Hopefully, those who've denied that trump is a threat in the past will come to their senses now.

Putin and Trump both like chaos. Without Trump, Russia's influence could be toned down quite a bit, as long as other Republicans didn't court them. Who knows anymore?

 

[Tangmo]

What I said has nothing to do with good guys vs bad guys, it has to do with how the game is played--- like it or not.

So you believe that just because YOU believe the Russians are the bad guys (and I'm not saying they aren't), that THEY have to accept that--- even as THEY BELIEVE they are the good guys???? Wow, never knew it was that simple. We just inform all of the bad guys they are bad and then expect them to not do what they think is in their best interests just because WESAYSO.

This is why they call it WAR. No difference in a hot war or a cold war, the clash of ideologies has both sides believing they are right and the other guy wrong. Like I said, our CIA operatives did pretty much the same things during the Soviet Afghanistan war. We supported in fact some really"bad guys" (the Taliban) against the other "bad guys" (the Soviets). But the truth is many of the Soviet soldiers the Taliban killed were no different than our soldiers--- just men following orders and serving their nations--- RIGHT OR WRONG.

So explain to me again about "moral equivalency" when WE our side---through the CIA was supporting the Taliban? Do you now see how a Russian might look at this and call us hypocrites?

Like I said, it is PUTIN'S JOB to do what he does. He isn't our ally, he isn't a trading partner, Russia is our adversary like it or not and your selective outrage is duly noted.

I never said the Russians have to accept that they're the bad guys.

I posted that you have to accept that the Russians are the bad guys.

And you have to accept that USA and Nato among other US defense partners are the good guys.

Putin considers it his job to do what he does, yes, which makes Putin the bad guy while the US and Nato allies plus other partner countries are the good guys. Boris Yeltsen never considered it "his job" as president of RF to be the bad guy to USA -- that's Putin's personal choice for his country that doesn't have to be but is because Putin is following his KGB instincts. You're the guy who has to accept all of this rather than say in a pious presumption and pretention both sides do it so the USA is equally evil to the RF and that we should or must accept a spanking for it.

Your focus against the USA is noted btw. Neither are you the only one as evidenced in scrolling. I never went to war but my job in the Army Infantry was to kill as many bad guys as possible while preserving the lives of my fellow good guy soldiers on my side. I see you don't like that. You think as many if not more of us as good guys should die as we kill of the bad guys. That's twisted.

 

[Bullseye]

OMG, the NYT printed this so it must be true, just as when they printed that Russia shot down MH17.

NYT always prints the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth! :lol:

The Director of National Intelligence says this is a bull**** story.

 

[Tangmo]

withdrawal from where?? Syria? WTF can we do in Syria? nothing -our force is so small Erdogan didn't even consider us a deterent when he went over and cleared the Kurds along th Syrian border.

You just write blandishments -nothing specific,, a waste of my time further

Included by Putin when he built Trump was to be Erdogan's buddy.

And to lay off Assad.

Plus to give the Russians our outpost bases in northern Syria.

These are all things you have no complaints about as you insist Americans must fight the terrorists over here rather than have our armed forces fight the terrorists over there. Let's call it Terrorist Dawn.