Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 9/5/2004 8:47:10 AM EST

The Crossroads
Little public analysis has been devoted to options realistically available to Vladimir Putin in response to the massacre of schoolchildren in Ossetia. The fact is that the world has been spoiled by looking at the world through the prism of the American media. When President Bush stopped to consider his response to September 11, he had a range of options available only to a nation as unimaginably powerful as the United States of America. Japanese newspapers reported that President Bush was offered the nuclear option immediately after the attack, probably as an extreme in a range that included filing a diplomatic protest on the opposite end of the spectrum, which he rejected, choosing instead to do what no other country could do: take down the state sponsors of terrorism and pursue the terrorists to the four corners of the earth. America's unmatched power allowed President Bush to select the most humane course of war available. No European power, nor all of them put together, could have embarked on such a precise campaign for lack of means. It was a rich man's strategy, a guerre de luxe.

But no one who has seen the rags and hodgepodge of equipment issued to the Russian Special Forces can entertain any illusion that Vladimir Putin can go around launching raids with hi-tech helicopters, or follow around perps with robotic drones before firing, or use satellite-guided bombs to wipe out enemy safe houses that have been seeded with RFID chips. Nor will those detained by Russia gain weight the way detainees have done at the "inhuman" Gitmo prison. That's an American way of war which even Europeans can only regard with envy. The poor must respond with less. When the Nepalese saw the video of their 12 compatriots executed by terrorists in Iraq, they did what you could do with a box of matches: they burned the mosque in Kathmandu. To paraphrase Crosby, Stills and Nash, 'if you can't hit the one you should then hit the one you're with'.

While Russia can do better than a box of matches, the reality is that its poverty and low-tech force structure will make any response that Putin may choose a brutal and largely indiscriminate affair unless it is subsumed into the larger American-led Global War on Terror. The real price of the European vacation from history is its abandonment of the first principle of civilization. Unless there is common justice, there will be vigilante justice.


posted by wretchard | Permalink: (Click to access comments)6:21 AM Zulu


belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/09/crossroads-little-public-analysis-has.html
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 9:02:07 AM EST
Very interesting and spot on.
However, I wonder if we make a terrible mistake in trying to "civilize" warfare. War is hell and it should be hell for all to see so as to be the most effective deterrent possible.
I'm not saying don't use technology to our advantage, but when brute force is called for, too many, especially the media, look on with comtempt.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 9:19:11 AM EST
A very simplistic view of the Russian military. They don't have high tech weapons?
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 9:21:15 AM EST
There will never be a common justice. TheAmerican media continues to lie and misdirect, and spend tyime on matters that do not make a damn. They won't tell you that the people around the school went home and got their rifles. They wont tell you that the russians wwent in only after a bomb went off. They won't tell you that the terrotrists in charge of the school were muslim extremeists and would never negotiate and would have killed everyone in the school anyhow.

The press won't tell you that radical chechen islamists are in Iraq taking part in the " rebellion". They wont tell you that Iran is behind a lot of what is currently going on and that they are suppling people and money. They are killing american soldiers. They wont tell you that Sadams WMDs were shipped to Syria. Like any good drug smuggler he got rid of any evidence, but we have still found enough WMD to kill 500,000 people.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 9:23:50 AM EST
In 2004, it would be unfair to mock the Russian military. But 10 years ago in Grozny and Chechnya? Oy. The Chechens could bribe the commander of one unit to have his drag-ass conscripts attack another unit of drag-ass underfed conscripts. They laughed at what whores the Russians were for a little bit of money.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 9:23:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mach1:
A very simplistic view of the Russian military. They don't have high tech weapons?

Not enough. And not enough people trained to use them. The collapse of the Sovient Union has decimated Russia's ability to field a decent - much less first-rate - military.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 9:23:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2004 9:25:34 AM EST by ArmdLbrl]

Originally Posted By Mach1:
A very simplistic view of the Russian military. They don't have high tech weapons?



Show me what you consider to be a Russian high tech weapon...
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 9:27:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2004 9:28:49 AM EST by Max_Mike]
I don’t believe how the Russians reacted one way or another would have made a difference.

Once the terrorist got established in the school the result was going to be the same once no matter what Russian security forces did or could not do. The result would have been the same no matter where this occurred and whoever made the rescue assault, it was to late to stop the end result 30 minutes in.

Only pro-active or can you say preemptive action could have stopped this atrocity.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 9:28:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2004 9:30:53 AM EST by raven]

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Mach1:
A very simplistic view of the Russian military. They don't have high tech weapons?



Show me what you consider to be a Russian high tech weapon...



www.aeronautics.ru/s300photos.htm

www.rusarm.ru/products/af/ka50.htm

Link Posted: 9/5/2004 9:33:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2004 9:33:35 AM EST by CAMPYBOB]
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 9:34:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Mach1:
A very simplistic view of the Russian military. They don't have high tech weapons?



Show me what you consider to be a Russian high tech weapon...



www.rusarm.ru/products/af/ka50.htm

www.aeronautics.ru/s300site.htm




And they apply to this kind of warfare how?

To pay for this stuf is why Russian troops still have AKs with iron sights and show up wearing self bought Nikies instead of boots.

They are still trying to build weapons to match us in a conventional war- and to top it off the two largest users of the S300 are India and the PRC! Russia cannot even afford to buy the best their own industry can make, much less develop things as good as ours.

Where are the JDAMs, the Paveways, the RFID tagging bullets, the night vision, the 3D wall penetrating radar, the secure radios, the thermal imagers and NVDs, the level III/IV body armor...
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 9:38:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/5/2004 9:38:38 AM EST by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Mach1:
A very simplistic view of the Russian military. They don't have high tech weapons?



Show me what you consider to be a Russian high tech weapon...



www.rusarm.ru/products/af/ka50.htm

www.aeronautics.ru/s300site.htm




And they apply to this kind of warfare how?

To pay for this stuf is why Russian troops still have AKs with iron sights and show up wearing self bought Nikies instead of boots.

They are still trying to build weapons to match us in a conventional war- and to top it off the two largest users of the S300 are India and the PRC! Russia cannot even afford to buy the best their own industry can make, much less develop things as good as ours.

Where are the JDAMs, the Paveways, the RFID tagging bullets, the night vision, the 3D wall penetrating radar, the secure radios, the thermal imagers and NVDs, the level III/IV body armor...



All the high tech weapons and know how in the world would not have kept that roof up. Casualties Might have been slightly lower with the best weapon and tactics in use but in the end the result would have still been an massacre.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 9:38:08 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 9:52:03 AM EST
The point of the article is not how they should have reacted differently to the hostage situation but what Putin's options are in retaliation for the massacre. The author is saying that their reaction will not include JDAMs guided in by remotely piloted vehicles. The options for Putin are much less sophisticated, much less discriminant.

Personally, I would like to see the Russians employ tactical nukes on known or suspected terrorist training camps. Once they set the precedent of using nukes in this war, the U.S. may actually grow the cajones to also use them also, thereby saving precious American lives.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 9:59:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By kill-9:
The point of the article is not how they should have reacted differently to the hostage situation but what Putin's options are in retaliation for the massacre. The author is saying that their reaction will not include JDAMs guided in by remotely piloted vehicles. The options for Putin are much less sophisticated, much less discriminant.

Personally, I would like to see the Russians employ tactical nukes on known or suspected terrorist training camps. Once they set the precedent of using nukes in this war, the U.S. may actually grow the cajones to also use them also, thereby saving precious American lives.



The Russians do have another option for a more sophisticated response.

They can ask US to help. I am sure if the Russians were to help with Iraq the US would be more that willing to give technical, material, covert, and actual hard assistance to them.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 10:00:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By kill-9:
The point of the article is not how they should have reacted differently to the hostage situation but what Putin's options are in retaliation for the massacre. The author is saying that their reaction will not include JDAMs guided in by remotely piloted vehicles. The options for Putin are much less sophisticated, much less discriminant.

Personally, I would like to see the Russians employ tactical nukes on known or suspected terrorist training camps. Once they set the precedent of using nukes in this war, the U.S. may actually grow the cajones to also use them also, thereby saving precious American lives.



Do the Russian's still field a numerical advantage in a slugfest? Just wondering what their numbers are. Can they still deploy anywhere in the world with speed and power?
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 10:03:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By kill-9:
The point of the article is not how they should have reacted differently to the hostage situation but what Putin's options are in retaliation for the massacre. The author is saying that their reaction will not include JDAMs guided in by remotely piloted vehicles. The options for Putin are much less sophisticated, much less discriminant.

Personally, I would like to see the Russians employ tactical nukes on known or suspected terrorist training camps. Once they set the precedent of using nukes in this war, the U.S. may actually grow the cajones to also use them also, thereby saving precious American lives.



We dont need to use nukes at this time. Our laser guided weapons are more effective than nukes.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 10:03:55 AM EST
I think they have brave, tough soldiers and acceptable equipment (especially light arms). What they need is better training and organization.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 10:16:16 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 10:19:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By Mach1:
A very simplistic view of the Russian military. They don't have high tech weapons?



Show me what you consider to be a Russian high tech weapon...



www.rusarm.ru/products/af/ka50.htm

www.aeronautics.ru/s300site.htm




And they apply to this kind of warfare how?




Agreed, but you just asked for what's considered high tech Russian weapons. The Russians make great stuff.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 10:35:15 AM EST

Can they still deploy anywhere in the world with speed and power?



No they cant, and they never could.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 10:38:28 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 10:51:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Personally, I would like to see the Russians employ tactical nukes on known or suspected terrorist training camps. Once they set the precedent of using nukes in this war, the U.S. may actually grow the cajones to also use them also, thereby saving precious American lives.


Heres to the eventual indescriminant use of NUKES!!!

Thats a line we dont want to cross, and we certainly dont want the unstable former Soviet republics to be the ones to initiate this.


Agreed.
Link Posted: 9/5/2004 11:05:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Personally, I would like to see the Russians employ tactical nukes on known or suspected terrorist training camps. Once they set the precedent of using nukes in this war, the U.S. may actually grow the cajones to also use them also, thereby saving precious American lives.



We dont need to use nukes at this time. Our laser guided weapons are more effective than nukes.



More effective at what? If the terrorists and, more importantly, terrorist-supporting nations, know that we will not use the deadliest weapons in our inventory, they will consider that when making plans. Unwillingness to employ nukes undercuts their credibility as a deterrent.


Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By kill-9:
Personally, I would like to see the Russians employ tactical nukes on known or suspected terrorist training camps. Once they set the precedent of using nukes in this war, the U.S. may actually grow the cajones to also use them also, thereby saving precious American lives.



Heres to the eventual indescriminant use of NUKES!!!



"Indescriminant"? Your word, certainly not mine.


Thats a line we dont want to cross, and we certainly dont want the unstable former Soviet republics to be the ones to initiate this.


We don't want to cross that line? Why not? See my argument to the contrary above.
Top Top