Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

If true, very interesting

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -1969.html

USSR planned nuclear attack on China in 1969
The Soviet Union was on the brink of launching a nuclear attack against China in 1969 and only backed down after the US told Moscow such a move would start World War Three, according to a Chinese historian.

I knew the two had very tense relations, but methinks the US should have let the two slaughter each other.

Dad was stationed at Minot AFB in ND at that time. We were out grouse hunting (sharptail, not ruffed) that day when the announcement came over the radio that all servicemen were to report to their duty stations immediately. When we got back to the base several of the B52's had already left (on their way to replace some orbiting over the Pacific off the coast of China) and the ADC squadron (F106's - 5th FIS) was on alert. Dad went in to work right away and only came home for a few hours at a time over the next few days as they worked to get/keep everything ready to roll if called.

We never knew what it was about till years later.

That is new information to me. Interdastin'.

Against the odds, I agree with Kreutz yet again. This is becoming irksome!

I also only recently heard that China actually invaded North (by then just) by Vietnam around 1977. They intended to reduce the dominance of Vietnam over the rest of SE Asia and by proxy the Russians who were their benefactors.

50,000 or so people died and Russia and China almost came to blows themselves.

These bits of history must have been shelved in order to make room for diversity lessons or some other such pap.

All was not brotherhood and comradeship among the commies. Funny how our schools omit that from their indoctrinations.

Communism and Socialism rock! They are the true way... Capitalism and the Republic must die!

And for those of you in Rio Linda, my tongue us planted in my cheek.

This just keeps getting wierder. Now I agree with Zsa Zsa Huffington!

We BOTH feel that Obamessiah needs "deep therapy."

lolz

Now now, nothing wrong with agrreing with me. If the two had vitrified each other it would have been good for the American people, but bad for the military industrial complex, so, the US intervened.

War (even a cold one) is always profitable for a small few at the expense of the many.

Interesting--very interesting. In some ways I feel like why did we bother stopping them--it would have solved a few of our current problems. But then the human toll would have been horrific and who knows what would have come in the breeze to come and kill off my parents or at least their reproductive systems so I can understand the benefit of stopping nuclear war in general.

Kreutz wrote:If true, very interesting

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -1969.html

USSR planned nuclear attack on China in 1969
The Soviet Union was on the brink of launching a nuclear attack against China in 1969 and only backed down after the US told Moscow such a move would start World War Three, according to a Chinese historian.

I knew the two had very tense relations, but methinks the US should have let the two slaughter each other.

In the context of that era, China had little or no counter-strike capability. The initial stages of the attack would have been very one sided and would stay that way unless another power of the time stepped in.

WRW wrote:

Kreutz wrote:If true, very interesting

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -1969.html

USSR planned nuclear attack on China in 1969
The Soviet Union was on the brink of launching a nuclear attack against China in 1969 and only backed down after the US told Moscow such a move would start World War Three, according to a Chinese historian.

I knew the two had very tense relations, but methinks the US should have let the two slaughter each other.

In the context of that era, China had little or no counter-strike capability. The initial stages of the attack would have been very one sided and would stay that way unless another power of the time stepped in.

Eh, best to let enemies kill each other irregardless.

What I was getting at was that one enemy would have killed the other (with little to no harm on his side) , gobbled up the resources of the other, and become a considerably more powerful foe.

Now that does sound like motivation for the US leadership to attempt to head this off at the pass, WRW.

Me and Kreutz can still wish them both wiped out tho.

It was during this time that Nixon was attempting to "hug it out" with these Chi Com vermin, too, rememba? The more I learn about Nixon the more I hate that sack o crap. Ford was a douchenozzle as well. Kissenger - totally duped by the Chi Coms and generally ineffective at advancing American interests.

Add em all up - That's how you get a total POS like Jimmah Carter as CIC. I would have turned to drugs and alcohol fo sho!

Now that does sound like motivation for the US leadership to attempt to head this off at the pass, WRW.

Me and Kreutz can still wish them both wiped out tho.

It was during this time that Nixon was attempting to "hug it out" with these Chi Com vermin, too, rememba? The more I learn about Nixon the more I hate that sack o crap. Ford was a douchenozzle as well. Kissenger - totally duped by the Chi Coms and generally ineffective at advancing American interests.

Add em all up - That's how you get a total POS like Jimmah Carter as CIC. I would have turned to drugs and alcohol fo sho! Bell bottom jeans and disco, still no.

Tweaker wrote:Now that does sound like motivation for the US leadership to attempt to head this off at the pass, WRW.

Me and Kreutz can still wish them both wiped out tho.

It was during this time that Nixon was attempting to "hug it out" with these Chi Com vermin, too, rememba? The more I learn about Nixon the more I hate that sack o crap. Ford was a douchenozzle as well. Kissenger - totally duped by the Chi Coms and generally ineffective at advancing American interests.

Add em all up - That's how you get a total POS like Jimmah Carter as CIC. I would have turned to drugs and alcohol fo sho! Bell bottom jeans and disco, still no.

The alternative to Nixon at that time was Humphrey. We may have had, though we'll never know, a Jimmy Carter (or worse) eight years earlier if he had won.

"Against the odds, I agree with Kreutz yet again. This is becoming irksome!"

(grumbles) Yeah, I know... It shakes the foundations of VGOF. HAHAHA

Agreed that Nixon was the "bastage" to BOTH sides that he's been suspected. Nixon, was the president that authorized the CREATION of the BUREAU OF ALCOHOL TOBACCO and FIREARMS to save the "Prohibition" division from being closed!

ChiCom pulled a fast one on us... now? They make almost all of our stuff. (sigh) In the end? Russia didn't beat us... China did... without a shot.

WRW wrote:What I was getting at was that one enemy would have killed the other (with little to no harm on his side) , gobbled up the resources of the other, and become a considerably more powerful foe.

Blasted radioactive ruins a productive resource is not.

Kreutz wrote:

WRW wrote:What I was getting at was that one enemy would have killed the other (with little to no harm on his side) , gobbled up the resources of the other, and become a considerably more powerful foe.

Blasted radioactive ruins a productive resource is not.

I wasn't aware that coal mines, metal mines and manufacturing plants, agricultural fields, petroleum fields, etc., etc., etc. were prime targets of military concern.