Detailed information on regular Russia armed forces in Ukraine. Conclusion: sanctions should remain in place.
https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/201503_BP_Russian_Forces_in_Ukraine_FINAL.pdf

In In Message 1650349 Мишель wrote:

Michel, as of 1812, the land we had still wasn't much more than the coastal areas anyway.
James, putting your point together with Michel's, it's apples and oranges. We now span (east-west) the continent. We didn't back then.

Well, look at a map of that time and you'll see the US consisted of a bit more than just those coastal areas. And that aside, the coastal area itself is pretty huge.

In any case, my point still stands. The 2nd amendment doesn't deter nations from invading the US, the sheer size of territory that would need to be conquered, raw military power of the US army and the impossible logistics involved with such an invasion do.

Sigh...


Мишель,

As Clyde said in his reply, the 2nd Amendment is about MORE than just 'foreign invasion'. I am getting bloody tired of people (both foreigners AND US Citizens) just not understanding this. An armed public serves two main functions. First, as you are talking about, defense from foreign invasion.

You seem to say 'leave it to the US Military'. Well, guess what... The 'US Military' is a LOT bigger than perhaps you realize. Let me quote you the appropriate section of US Federal Law:

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

Yep, you read it right... Per CURRENT US Federal Law, ALL able-bodied men 17 to 45 (with a few exceptions to the maximum age in section 313) that are US Citizens or are in process of becoming thus ARE 'military' (militia).

Now, what does the 2nd Amendment say?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The term 'regulated' here was in common use at the time (late 1700s, CE) to mean 'trained'. In other words, the People needed to know how to shoot, and be practised at it, thus they MUST be allowed to own and use Firearms.

Now, the 2nd main function an armed populace serves is protecting the People from tyranny from the US Federal Government. You (and many others) seem to poo-poo this and claim it isn't true. But it is. Let us examine this further.

James Madison Jr., perhaps you have heard of him? The 4th US President, "Father of the Constitution", and champion of the "Bill of Rights" (which contains that Amendment you hate so, you know... the 2nd one). He was the major author of both the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights.

Well, what did HE have to say on the subject?

Along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, Madison produced a series of essays now known as 'The Federalist Papers'. In Federalist #46, Madison wrote (quoting a relevant section):

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_46.html

As you can see, an armed populace was considered then to be a defence against tyranny by the US Federal Government. The Same is still true today.

Now then, you might say that 'state militias' were the operative armed forces back then, and you would be right. The US Military land forces were virtually exclusively 'state militias' prior to 1900. Only after 1900 did the US Federal Government form a standing, regular army and transition away from 'state militias'. But the transition was not a complete one. Around 25% (about 500,000 out of about 2,000,000) members of the military are STILL in 'state militias (organized)' -- The National Guard.

In the event of the US Federal Government getting tyrannical (like it is increasingly doing), doubtlessly quite a number of Guard units would side with the States and People. Something about the Constitution in their oaths and all. The possibility also exists that some of the regular armed forces might join. Much the same oaths. Unlawful orders and all.

Now then, as a brief aside, on the War of 1812. Some misinformation was presented in the Previous Thread. Yes, the USA did start that War, but it was with cause. Yes, the Canadian forces DID invade the USA, even captured Washington DC and burned the White House.

No, the USA didn't win that war. The USA didn't even win any battles of consequence DURING the War. Not A One. The only major battle the USA won was the Battle of New Orleans, and it was fought about a month AFTER the peace treaty was signed (communications were SLOW back in those days).

As you say, the logistics of trans-Atlantic warfare was what made Britain willing to agree to peace. It was costing them a LOT of money.

How is ANY of this relevant to the subject of this thread? Simple.

Russia apparently has (or at least its actions of late STRONGLY imply it) ambitions of regaining some of its lost territory. Crimea/Ukraine lost when the USSR imploded. What else has Russia 'lost' that they might maybe want back? Hmm..

Alaska. Sure the USA 'bought' Alaska from Russia, but at a steal of a bargain price when one examines all the resources there. It is not outside the realm of possibility that Russia might want it back.

The Bering Strait is only about 55 miles (82 km) wide at its narrowest point. On a clear day, it is possible to see Russian territory from US territory. A land war with Russia vs. the USA would not be anywhere near the logistical nightmare that previous wars (vs. Great Britain in 1776 & 1812, or Germany and/or Japan in 1941) would have been. Russia has in interest in former territory (Alaska), and a great shortcut (the Bering Strait). I wouldn't put it past Putin to at least test it. He buzzes US territory there often enough with his bombers as it is.

We would likely need everyone shooting at the Ruskies if they DO try it.

Alaska. Sure the USA 'bought' Alaska from Russia, but at a steal of a bargain price when one examines all the resources there. It is not outside the realm of possibility that Russia might want it back.

The Bering Strait is only about 55 miles (82 km) wide at its narrowest point. On a clear day, it is possible to see Russian territory from US territory. A land war with Russia vs. the USA would not be anywhere near the logistical nightmare that previous wars (vs. Great Britain in 1776 & 1812, or Germany and/or Japan in 1941) would have been. Russia has in interest in former territory (Alaska), and a great shortcut (the Bering Strait). I wouldn't put it past Putin to at least test it. He buzzes US territory there often enough with his bombers as it is.

Very good Point.
Guess what Russia are doing and is almost like the operation Warlord?
Yes. Preparing the army with invasion forces.
A lot of amphibian forces and airborne troops.
Even tanks are airborne.
These units are called VDV.
The Russian Airborne Troops or VDV (from "Vozdushno-desantnye voyska", Russian: Воздушно-десантные войска, ВДВ; Air-landing Forces)

Come to Think about it.
Maybe Putin want to cancel the Alaska transaction in the same manner as in Crimea...
The check used to purchase Alaska, 7.2 million US dollars.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskak%C3%B6pet#mediaviewer/File:Alaska_Purchase_(hi-res).jpg

Re: Message 1651706 - Posted: 11 Mar 2015, 16:49:24 UTC

+ 1 googleplex

With regards to the 'well regulated militia' in most states the Concealed Carry Licenses carry a provision that the holder MUST be trained in the use of firearms.

To me and many others Gun Control is the ability to place 5 rounds in a 3 inch group at 100 yards.

:D .g

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Re: Message 1651706 - Posted: 11 Mar 2015, 16:49:24 UTC
+ 1 googleplex
With regards to the 'well regulated militia' in most states the Concealed Carry Licenses carry a provision that the holder MUST be trained in the use of firearms.
To me and many others Gun Control is the ability to place 5 rounds in a 3 inch group at 100 yards.
:D .g

In Russia there are no concealed weapons as we all know.
The ability to place 5 rounds in a 3 inch group at 100 yards is not a requirement both in Russia and "Novorossia".

Add some vodka and...

Alaska. Sure the USA 'bought' Alaska from Russia, but at a steal of a bargain price when one examines all the resources there. It is not outside the realm of possibility that Russia might want it back.

The Bering Strait is only about 55 miles (82 km) wide at its narrowest point. On a clear day, it is possible to see Russian territory from US territory. A land war with Russia vs. the USA would not be anywhere near the logistical nightmare that previous wars (vs. Great Britain in 1776 & 1812, or Germany and/or Japan in 1941) would have been. Russia has in interest in former territory (Alaska), and a great shortcut (the Bering Strait). I wouldn't put it past Putin to at least test it. He buzzes US territory there often enough with his bombers as it is.

We would likely need everyone shooting at the Ruskies if they DO try it.

Invading the US through Alaska is still a logistical nightmare. Sure, you don't have to cross that much ocean. Now you just need to cross a lot of uninhabited land. With no roads. Filled with forests and mountains. And the Russians would need to move a lot of stuff to their eastern sea border, which still basically mean they need to move stuff halfway across the globe.

And on top of that, it would still put him in direct open warfare with the most powerful conventional military force in the world.

Alaska. Sure the USA 'bought' Alaska from Russia, but at a steal of a bargain price when one examines all the resources there. It is not outside the realm of possibility that Russia might want it back.

The Bering Strait is only about 55 miles (82 km) wide at its narrowest point. On a clear day, it is possible to see Russian territory from US territory. A land war with Russia vs. the USA would not be anywhere near the logistical nightmare that previous wars (vs. Great Britain in 1776 & 1812, or Germany and/or Japan in 1941) would have been. Russia has in interest in former territory (Alaska), and a great shortcut (the Bering Strait). I wouldn't put it past Putin to at least test it. He buzzes US territory there often enough with his bombers as it is.

We would likely need everyone shooting at the Ruskies if they DO try it.

Invading the US through Alaska is still a logistical nightmare. Sure, you don't have to cross that much ocean. Now you just need to cross a lot of uninhabited land. With no roads. Filled with forests and mountains. And the Russians would need to move a lot of stuff to their eastern sea border, which still basically mean they need to move stuff halfway across the globe.

And on top of that, it would still put him in direct open warfare with the most powerful conventional military force in the world.

You are expecting logic from Russia? Especially Russia under Putin?

You are expecting logic from Russia? Especially Russia under Putin?

LOL. I see so many very wild fantasies in this topic... It causes other question - who is expecting logic from West?

It would be like selling a car, changing the ownership with DVLC, then deciding a month later that you made a mistake and sending the boys round to get it back.

You mean in the same way Russia did in Crimea?

You are expecting logic from Russia? Especially Russia under Putin?

LOL. I see so many very wild fantasies in this topic... It causes other question - who is expecting logic from West?

Welcome Igor to real news from Russia:)

Western fantasies about Russia.
Russian Roulette Dispatch 1 to 100!
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=vice+news+russian+roulette
VICE News here: https://news.vice.com/topic/ukraine

You are expecting logic from Russia? Especially Russia under Putin?

Yes, to some degree I do.

Putin went into Ukraine because he knew he could get away with it. Putin knows that if he goes after Alaska, he just started WW3 and he knows thats one war he cannot win.

Ulrik Franke at Swedish Total Defence Research Institute in a new report on Russian information warfare.

Throughout the escalating crisis in and subsequent Russian aggression against Ukraine from late 2013 onwards, Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs Carl Bildt was an outspoken supporter of Ukraine and a critic of Russia until his term in office ended following election defeat in September 2014. Therefore it is not surprising that he was regularly smeared in Russian state-controlled media such as RT (formerly known as Russia Today).
For the domestic Russian-speaking audience, Bildt was discredited in the popular Vesti Nedeli [News of the Week] show on the state-owned TV channel Rossiia 1 on December 1, 2013. Bildt was called a CIA agent and a Poltava revanchist, and this was followed by smearing of degenerate Swedish child-rearing and children’s culture.
A week later, Vesti Nedeli host Dmitrii Kiselyov was appointed head of the new Russian international news agency Rossiia Segodnia, formed by merging state-owned news agency RIA Novosti and the official international radio station, Voice of Russia.
In the wake of the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 tragedy, Bildt and Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs Radek Sikorski were dubbed “the principal perpetrators of this madness”, having schemed to break “the ties between Russia and Ukraine that had taken centuries to build”.
In August, an RT columnist celebrated Bildt’s predicted electoral defeat: “If any single European politician has blood on his hands in Ukraine this year, it’s Stockholm’s resident neo-con fanatic” .
The significance of the anti-Bildt campaign should not be overstated. What is interesting in this context is how the denigration of Bildt relates closely to Streltsov’s political aspects of information warfare. Streltsov argues that the state must maintain a positive image of its political leaders, and he explicitly states that (defensive) political information warfare should identify and stop harmful propaganda and disinformation, in the national and international public spheres. The discrediting of Bildt is an excellent example of how such political information warfare looks when it is not defensive, but attacking.

Poltava is the place where Sweden and Ukraine fought together against Russia in a battle 300 years ago!

To save two posts I'll answer two questions in one.

To me and many others Gun Control is the ability to place 5 rounds in a 3 inch group at 100 yards.

For a Rifle.

Handgun: 6 Rounds, in the torso, in 2 seconds, at fifteen (15) feet.

I would suggest to you that the above is more firearms skill and ability. Gun control is policing and managing who has the guns in the first place.

100% agree.

No felons.

+1 We need to enforce the laws now on the books, not make new laws that infringe on LEGAL GUN OWNERS. As to handgun control, you are also correct and it's six rounds if that's the magazine limit, otherwise keep pulling the trigger until nothing happens.....

Chris :"It is now American territory", to be completely correct it's not territory, it is a STATE, Puerto Rico is a territory.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

The Viking Valdemar, who secured his throne in Kiev with fighters from Scandinavia, will get a statue in Moscow:)
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article.php?id=516827
I hope that the Russians have read their history and the Primary Chronicle:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Chronicle

The state that existed between 862 and 1240 called Kievan Rus, or Ruthenia, "the Rus land."
The dynasty was established according to the Primary Chronicle about Rurik (actually Rörikr) with his retinue, a rusian (ie Swedish) ruler of Novgorod, a kingdom which then expanded his power and had from 1097 countless large and small principalities as "vassals" (with relatives who regents) within their empire, where Chernihiv was the kingdom's second city and often ruled by the crown prince. 882 or 912 capital was moved to Kiev, which became so until the kingdom completely fell apart under attack from surrounding states and Mongol Golden Horde who held most of the kingdoms of Ruthenia as vassal.

Vladimir Sviatoslavich the Great (Old East Slavic: Володимѣръ Свѧтославичь Volodiměrъ Svętoslavičь, Old Norse as Valdamarr Sveinaldsson, Russian: Влади́мир, Vladimir, Ukrainian: Володимир, Volodymyr, Belarusian: Уладзiмiр, Uladzimir; c. 958 – 15 July 1015, Berestove) was a prince of Novgorod, grand prince of Kiev, and ruler of Kievan Rus' from 980 to 1015.

Vladimir the Great's father was prince Sviatoslav of the Rurik dynasty. After the death of his father in 972, Vladimir, who was then prince of Novgorod, was forced to flee to Scandinavia in 976 after his brother Yaropolk had murdered his other brother Oleg and conquered Rus'. In Sweden, with the help from his relative Ladejarl HÃ¥kon Sigurdsson, ruler of Norway, he assembled a Varangian army and reconquered Novgorod from Yaropolk. By 980 Vladimir had consolidated the Kievan realm from modern-day Ukraine to the Baltic Sea and had solidified the frontiers against incursions of Bulgarian, Baltic, and Eastern nomads. Originally a follower of Slavic paganism, Vladimir converted to Christianity and Christianized the Kievan Rus'.

The ties with the Vikings and the Nordic countries remained a long time, even if you married into the Slavic lineages and spoke their language, Ruthenian.
The usual prince name Vladimir / Volodymyr corresponds to Nordic Valdemar, in use at both locations during the early Middle Ages.
Yaroslav the Wise (in Sweden called Jarisleif) married Ingegerd Olofsdotter of Sweden, daughter of Olof Skötkonung and Slavic Estrid of the Obotrites.
Jaroslav gave asylum to Olaf II of Norway and invited Harald III of Norway (Harald Hårdråde) who married Jaroslavs daughter Elisabeth of Kiev.
Even Olav Tryggvason in and Magnus I of Norway sought refuge at the house of Rurik in Novgorod.
Vladimir II Monomakh married Gytha of Wessex (ca. 1055-ca 1100), daughter of England's Danish Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson of the House of Wessex.
Mother of Valdemar the Great (1131-1182) of Denmark was Ingeborg of Kiev, daughter of Vladimir II Monomachs son Mstislav I and Christina Inge, daughter of Inge Stenkilsson and Helen of Östergötland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurik_dynasty#Origins

Vladimir the Great even had a Scandinavian name Valdamarr Sveinaldsson meaning
Valdamarr son of Sveinald (russian Sviatoslav)

Tsar Valdemar Putin:)

Jay Leno Jaywalking - Name a Country that borders the USA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8I30k3ChKw

This is really funny.
President Putin "disappear" from the television screen - and immediately is speculation started that he is seriously ill, or even death.

Hashtag #PutinUmer (Putin is dead) has dominated totally in Russian Twitter. The black humor abounds, including photoshopped pictures of Putin's "secret burial" and allegations that the president "has a summit with Gaddafi and Chavez" - two authoritarian leaders who have died in recent years.

Hashtag #PutinUmer is now dead :)
http://twitter.com/PutinUmer

Russia was quite happy to flog it off for their own interests at the time. It is now American territory, if they invaded and occupied that, it would be an act of war against America, with the obvious consequences. In any case any major build up of troops and military equipment would be detected by spy satellites long before any shot was fired, and the hot lines would be ringing.

Ok, then, if a Russian invasion of Alaska (former Russian Territory) would be an act of war against the USA (its current owner)...

How then was the Russian invasion of Crimea (former Russian Territory) not an act of war against Ukraine (its owner before the invasion)??

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (former territory of a predecessor state) was an act of war against Kuwait, and resulted in an international military effort to dislodge Iraq.

Where is the international military effort to dislodge Russia from Crimea?

Lack of testicular fortitude on the part of the EU, perhaps?

Where is the international military effort to dislodge Russia from Crimea?
Lack of testicular fortitude on the part of the EU, perhaps?

Russia has by far the largest military in Europe.
Do you want to play ball?

Ok, then, if a Russian invasion of Alaska (former Russian Territory) would be an act of war against the USA (its current owner)...

How then was the Russian invasion of Crimea (former Russian Territory) not an act of war against Ukraine (its owner before the invasion)??

It was an act of war against Ukraine.

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (former territory of a predecessor state) was an act of war against Kuwait, and resulted in an international military effort to dislodge Iraq.

Where is the international military effort to dislodge Russia from Crimea?

Lack of testicular fortitude on the part of the EU, perhaps?

Where was the international effort to dislodge the US occupying forces from Iraq? An act of war is an act of war, but an act of war does not bind states to actually fight the war. In the case of Ukraine, the fact was that by the time anyone knew what had happened it was already to late to do something about it.

In the case of Ukraine, what would the EU or the US gain from declaring war against Russia? There are no treaties at stake here, there no obligations towards Ukraine that would require us to declare war on Russia, and while we might win the war in the end, it would be costly for us. Costly enough that there is no political will to do it.

So why would there be a war in case NATO gets attacked by Russia? Well, there are formal obligations for us to declare war against Russia for one. Also, if we don't, NATO ceases to exist and thats a political cost that people are most likely unwilling to pay. Furthermore, if Putin attacks NATO his intentions towards Eastern Europe and the EU are clear and undeniably hostile. There would be no other measures left but war to solve the conflict.

In the case of Alaska, asides from the fact that it would be an attack against NATO, it would be an attack against the US. Barring a complete shift in American politics, there would be no president or congress willing to stand idly by while they lose territory and lose a state to a foreign power. The American people would also be unlikely to accept such a thing so there would be overwhelming support for any political leader that votes to defend Alaska.

Why then Kuwait? Well, Kuwait asked for an intervention by the UN first of all. Secondly, the West had geopolitical interests in the region that aligned with helping Kuwait. And while China and Russia are generally against such foreign policy adventures, the UN mandate only covered liberating Kuwait, not taking out Saddam Hussein, and there are pretty high costs attached to being against that.

Where is the international military effort to dislodge Russia from Crimea?
Lack of testicular fortitude on the part of the EU, perhaps?

Russia has by far the largest military in Europe.
Do you want to play ball?

Size isn't everything. A lot of their material is old junk and poorly maintained. A lot of their troops are poorly trained and poorly equipped. In case of an open war with NATO and barring nuclear escalation, NATO would probably win.

Size isn't everything. A lot of their material is old junk and poorly maintained. A lot of their troops are poorly trained and poorly equipped.

What!!!
A lot of Russias material is new "junk" and very well maintained. A lot of their troops are very well trained and equipped.
They also have combat experience...
Look at their VDV forces. Russian Air Force. Nukes...

In case of an open war with NATO and barring nuclear escalation, NATO would probably win.

That's a bit naive.