Obama giving away Alaska to the Ruskies?

Discussion in 'Tin Foil Hat Lounge' started by CATO, Feb 28, 2013.


  1. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

  2. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    This is just so much BS[BSf] it is unbelievable.... I don't know where this guy gets his information, but he certainly has NEVER actually been to ALASKA, and spent any time trying to travel across the interior.... There are NO ROADS from the Western Alaska Coast, to anywhere else in Alaska, and if there were to be "AN INVASION" it would have to happen in the DEAD of Winter, or the Tanks, and Troop Carriers, would sink out of sight, in the Tundra, before moving 10 miles. Russia does NOT have the Troop Carrier Ships, or the Transport Shipping to move and ARMY sized Unit ANYWHERE, let alone, Alaska, which has basically NO Ports that could handle such an OffLoad of such Magnitude, that can connect to what few Roads we do have up here.... Russia also could NOT control the Airspace, over any such Landing Force, especially from their OWN Bases, or even from what few Aircraft Carriers, they are able to field. In the modern Battlefield, any such INVASION would be slaughtered on the beaches, from Ft Richardson, and Elmandorf Joint Bases. Heck even if the Russians landed a Company sized force, using every Submarine they OWNED in the Pacific, the locals, would cause them such a fuss, they would be better off just leaving with their Skins intact... .... This may sound like a Plan, to some IDIOT, sitting behind a Desk in DC, but up here in the REAL Alaskan Bush, it isn't even a decent Pipe Dream....

    and one last thing.... Nobody does INVASIONs of Nuke holding/Missile slinging Countries in this day and age. It is just IDIOTIC to think ANY country would even contemplate such a thing. I mean one Tactical Nuke, would take out the whole Invasion Force... Yea, we might lose a local village or two, but that would be less than 2K citizens, even if such a thing would happen. It is a STUPID Article, and NOT based in Reality....
     
    tulianr, chelloveck and Tracy like this.
  3. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    I wouldn't underestimate the stupidity of others, or their resilience. Granted, an invasion of Alaska would be extremely difficult, if not plain stupid --but it is not impossible. Russia certainly does possess the manpower and the tenacity to initiate such a maneuver, but in the long term, protecting what little ground they can claim would prove to be disastrous.

    This is quite true --and the very reason the battles continue to this day between the two super power cartels (US ENGLAND vs. RUSSIO-COMMUNIST)

    This is where the author jumps the gun a bit. I don't see Alaska as the only target, being a "periphery" as mentioned, there are far more suitable ports, some which are not as difficult to control and navigate. Let's think about this a moment.

    Hypothetically speaking, if Russia attacks Alaska, and that's a large stretch of the imagination, the point would be to invade the United States, and as such, it would need quick and hard hitting ground forces, most of which would be useless pinned down in Alaska. No, the most strategic and sensible approach would be a mainland assault, around Washington State through California, or even through Canada since no matter where they hit mainland, they would draw the combined forces of the UK and any allies to the United States. Therefore, it would be most practical to use the terrain to their advantage. Of course, their supply lines would have to be air-dropped, and if a large enough force could occupy any sizable portion of the western seaboard, this could be accommodated by a clear line through the Bering Sea and then the North Pacific as needed. Now, the Russians wouldn't want to fight on multiple fronts, so it can wage war facing east with nothing to their backs but he ocean and their support lines, which would need to be heavily defended. To the north, they could set up artillery strike zones and keep any large forces at bay long enough to establish air superiority (laughs). This is where they would need enormous support from China, N. Korea and any other ally --creating enough of a burden on their foe so they can maintain momentum after the first landing. They would have to target key military bases and communications, and simultaneously making sure not to become bogged down in urban combat. They could launch an offensive with heavy ground strikes from submarine, and perhaps some quick air attacks, but only if (again laughs) they can find a way to cut off American air superiority.

    An attack on Alaska would be so far removed from the equation, it might only be considered as an after thought, a finishing blow when the war has ended and Russia proves to be victorious (laughs hysterically).
     
  4. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    and all the while our Nuke Boomers would be turning their cities into Glass Parking Lots.... during the first action on our shores... Just doesn't add up AT ALL... Nobody is THAT Stupid, not even IMANUTJOB... in Iran....

    West Coast of Canada is out as an Attack Point, as the only Port even close to being Big Enough, to land and off-load an ARMY sized Unit would be Vancouver BC, and that means they would have to come in thru the Straights of Jaun De Fucia, which is a terrible Chock Point. and only 15 miles wide.... Same with any Port in Puget Sound Washington, and even in Portland, Oregon they would have to navigate the Columbia River Bar, which is NOT for the faint of heart..... SanFran, Oakland, or Long Beach would be much easier....
     
    oldawg and Brokor like this.
  5. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    The ones that are probably parked in port somewhere . . . those boomers--like our carriers are right now?

    The Kenyan wants this country in a 3rd world existence . . . oligarchy left in place. I'm not agreeing with this guy, but, I also wouldn't put anything past that walking POS in the White House.
     
    Capt. Tyree and Brokor like this.
  6. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    This is a great point, and one too many often miss. I always say, "everything is fake", meaning everything we see is just a staged performance, or they happen for reasons other than what we initially believe.

    At the top, there are no enemies, just brothers who each took solemn vows of secrecy. At the top, the world is a chessboard, and the key chess masters play with entire nations as if they were pawns.
     
  7. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Lessee. Current boomers carry 24 Tridents, MIRVed, with about 4500 mile range (I think that makes them SRBMs as vs. ICBMs) so not all of the former USSR is in range of boomers. At any given time, about 1/3 of the fleet is on station, so figure around 10 boats can launch within minutes of the go codes. We have to assume that some will be lost to bad luck and accidental discovery by the enemy (assumed Russia or its progeny) so assume 2 are lost. That leaves about 200 missiles to raise cain on enemy soil. With MIRVS, that's a lot of soil in the air. I'm not sure how many of the other two thirds of the boats can put to sea in short order, but it won't be all of them, as it's an odds on bet some will be taken out in the first actions.

    We know that "Russia" has maybe 10 missile boats, and China maybe the same, and it's a pretty good bet we know where they are and our hunter-killers will take out several. Logically then, we have sea superiority across the board, possibly excepting hunter-killer subs I an unaware of at this time. "Russia" has a large number of long range bombers and can send a large number of long range screening aircraft with them. China does not have much in the way of strategic aircraft at this time, but their interceptors are pretty good. I think our fighter aircraft have at least parity with both Russian and Chinese fighters. I don't know where we stand with long range bombers, but I'm aware of limited long range screening aircraft.

    Strategically, it's insane to nuke land that you want to live in and use. As a defensive reaction, it makes sense to nuke the enemy control centers. Thus, IMHO, I think the enemy would lots prefer to keep the population here under control and useful in the mines and factories, so nuking is unlikely beyond a very few places that represent a threat, all of those in CONUS and HI. AK is not a target, period, unless and until CONUS is pacified and the wealth of the land can be harvested at leisure.

    At some point, all the heavy stuff will be used up, and it'll come to ground tactics. The enemy gets nowhere with that unless zero is effective with his disarmament program. "Every blade of grass."

    Anyway, the old time philosophy of MADD is alive and well in spite of treaties to the contrary. It won't be glassine destruction, but the setback to the early 20th Century is pretty likely.
     
    BTPost and Brokor like this.
  8. Akheloce

    Akheloce Monkey++

    A lot of ridiculousness and misinformation goin on in this thread.
     
  9. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    Explain.
     
    CATO likes this.
  10. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    Remember the Cuban missile crisis. Now that's a far safer bet than the Bering Sea assault.
     
  11. Akheloce

    Akheloce Monkey++

    Well, to start with, the article referenced in the OP is absolute bunk. Those islands were never claimed by the US. Nothing was "given" to Russia. No F-22's... Sure for a brief period, but in the meantime we had 3 squadrons of F-18's, F-16's and F-15's rotating through Elmendorf. Some "villager's" anecdotal evidence of no airplanes flying is laughable. Russian troops driving around north of Anchorage? LOL.

    Russia doesn't have crap for a navy. They don't have the means to even get them here, let alone take over the less than 6 ports that connect to the road system.

    Our carriers in port? No, that was a rare moment that happened for 2 weeks over christmas. This has already been discussed in the "wrong with this picture" thread. Our boomers are less in number than back in the 80's sure, but they're not "back in port with the carriers". As far as where the boomers can reach, let's not forget that tridents are only one leg of the triad.

    The whole premise of this thread is senseless, for the reasons that I, you, and BTPost have mentioned.

    No offense intended to any poster here, nor the OP, but this whole subject is too far out there to waste server space.
     
    chelloveck and tulianr like this.
  12. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    @Akheloce haha, well I have to agree with you on the premise raised when only considering "Russia", and that article did lead readers in the wrong direction. But, if we take into account China, N. Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba...I mean, we are looking at a different ball game. Naturally, the United States has superior forces, but with most of its armies deployed to the Middle East, and let's consider an Iran conflict in the brew kettle --the domestic security of our nation is ripe for the picking. Now we have a disarmament program aimed at civilians like never before seen and the market is barren of ammo and firearms. We have illegal immigrant armies (La Raza, Mecha, etc.) and more filtering in daily, corrupt politicians everywhere, a failing economy, crime soaring, meth labs all over, corrupt police and abuse running wild...

    Of course, all of this invasion discussion is hypothetical, but good to bash ideas.
     
  13. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    ...and that is the reason it is in the TFHL--something to be laughed at because it is absurd. It was meant to be funny . . . lighten up.

     
  14. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    I laughed at it.
     
  15. Akheloce

    Akheloce Monkey++

    Ok, I'll bite ;)

    The problem with that scenario is that not a single one of those countries have the means to project force. They don't have the heavy airlift capacity, nor the navy to project such force.

    They collectively would be crazy to even consider military action against us. For them, it's a matter of economics. They have to have a reason, and Iran aside (radical Muslim), economic power is the only reason to control us. They don't need their militaries for that, they can just sit back and wait for us to implode upon ourselves. They can then just buy up our interests, and expand their spheres of influence in our absence.
     
  16. Akheloce

    Akheloce Monkey++

    Fair enough, I'm laughing :D
     
  17. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    Good! That was the intended purpose...[beer]
     
  18. Akheloce

    Akheloce Monkey++

    Gotta remember, it's been winter up here for almost 6 months now. The discussions amongst Alaskans reach their peak in "enthusiasm" about this time of the year ;)
     
    Brokor likes this.
  19. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    I agree, except they can "project force", just not the kind typified by American military dominance. China has tested EMP weaponry, and there's more to an attack than linear assault. But yes, the use of simple economics and a seemingly innocuous yet steady immigration from Mexico is taking its toll. An all-out attack, Red Dawn style is just hypothetical, like I said --not very realistic.
     
  20. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    Here you go, some humor mixed with "in your face"...

     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7