Do you *really* think the Cold War is over?
 

First, read this:

MOSCOW - President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) said Wednesday that Russia is developing a new form of nuclear missile unlike those held by other countries, news agencies reported.

Speaking at a meeting of the Armed Forces' leadership, Putin reportedly said that Russia is researching and successfully testing new nuclear missile systems.


"I am sure that ... they will be put in service within the next few years and, what is more, they will be developments of the kind that other nuclear powers do not and will not have," Putin was quoted as saying by the ITAR-Tass news agency.


Putin reportedly said: "International terrorism is one of the major threats for Russia. We understand as soon as we ignore such components of our defense as a nuclear and missile shield, other threats may occur."


No details were immediately available, but Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said earlier this month that Russia expected to test-fire a mobile version of its Topol-M ballistic missile this year and that production of the new weapon could be commissioned in 2005.


News reports have also said Russia is believed to be developing a next-generation heavy nuclear missile that could carry up to 10 nuclear warheads weighing a total of 4.4 tons, compared with the Topol-M's 1.32-ton combat payload.


Topol-Ms have been deployed in silos since 1998. The missiles have a range of about 6,000 miles and reportedly can maneuver in ways that are difficult to detect.


Earlier this year, a senior Defense Ministry official was quoted as telling news agencies that Russia had developed a weapon that could make the United States' proposed missile-defense system useless. Details were not given, but military analysts said the claimed new weapon could be a hypersonic cruise missile or maneuverable ballistic missile warheads.

Second:

Think about it from a strategic point of view... poor Russia, they have no money, the subs are rusting, boo-hoo... they are not a threat anymore. OR is that really true? Think about it. Isn't it possible that we let our guard down with the "terror war"?

I don't really know... but thought it would make for a good OT post.

Just a thought.

Pete

Now THAT's re-assuring :rolleyes:

I don't trust the ruskies and I wouldn't if i were any of you either...

PUTIN was Ex-KGB, supposedly.......I don't think EX should have been used, he's still KGB to the core.

No the cold war wasn't completely over, its more like a lukewarm war now however.

Of course all the dissillusioned peaceniks who want us to totally disarm would leave us vulnerable to the Chinese, the Russians and everyone else with a nuke.

Mr. Putin was the director of the KGB before it was reinvented as a *security agency* :uhoh:
Comrade, you are now a certified security agent, now you can kill with the blessing of the FRR(Federation of Russian Republics, is that what we call them this week?) and we will not deny any knowledge of you, but will merely say you where *acting alone*, personally, I still prefer calling them the FSU(Former Soviet Union) :rolleyes5
All things considered, the statement about the missile is just a *hard sell* to his own military, where will the money for R&D come from? They have problems meeting the military payroll. We have ex-FSU military guys looking for work around here as training staff or mercernaries, you pay US$ up front and chose the target, they provide the fireworks. I am not joking about this, the INTERPOL has it's hands full with investigations involving ex-Soviet military personnel :shocked2:

I think the rest of the world is about to re-arm because of OUR belligerent activities. Our pre-emptive invasion may have caught the attention of many who wish not to be pre-empted. The Russians and the Europeans, after four years of estrangement under Bush, have figured out they really don't need us anymore. The French, the Germans and the Russians are about to form their own alliance. The price we have paid for our "go it alone" policy is the rest of the world is about to let us do just that.

You are right. Even Malaysia is nervous about the US pre-emptive strike policy, so military equipment is being sourced from other countries.
Aircraft=Russia
Navy=British, Italian and German and of course, EXOCETs from France :D
Army=South Africe and recently Poland
US= :hanged:

Well son of a *****. Looks like I'd better move to one of the poles.... :eek:

Kirk, you may want to be the unarmed guy at the gunfight, but thank god most of us don't.

A little lesson in world politics is a lot like High school. You have bullies, and they like to threaten others....And if you want to be the timid pascifist that hands over his lunch money to the bullies everyday and still gets his butt kicked because he is afraid to stand up for himself, do so......

Luckily that mindset is limited the the BLUE area of the map. If it wasn't for the RED people on the map and people like them, We would not be the USA and today you would be speaking either Japanses OR German .

We have the right and the need to be properly armed to defend our freedom.

I'm not too sure I can buy the whole, "We are a poor nation and can't pay our bills" routine that comes out of the USSR (They will always bee the USSR to me. -- that's just me) I think they can, do, and will pay for such a program.

I don't doubt what you're saying, but I think the $$ *IS* there for these projects.

Pete

This is a joke right? With all due respect. Take a look at the map of WHERE the people come from that are fighting the "war" on terror. Honestly, I can't believe you really believe a comment like that. (Google it, don't ask.)

Just IMHO,

Pete

Weird. You’d think they’d be developing lifting vehicles to compete on satellite launches not threats.

Yes most of these people are from the Red states, Liberal democrats are the definate minority in the armed services. Thats what my intent was.

"Luckily that mindset is limited the the BLUE area of the map. If it wasn't for the RED people on the map and people like them, We would not be the USA and today you would be speaking either Japanses OR German . "

This argument is wrong in so many ways I don't know where to start. Well, how about...FDR was a 'Blue' person.

As an aside, the Russians did more to defeat the Germans than the U.S. Reductionist history is for those who don't truly understand the past, and therefore, struggle, and ultimately fail, when relating it to the present.

You are trying to state revisionist history.......

Russia definately shortend the war by saping German resources......but We would still have won even without them. It just would have taken longer and cost more American lives.

I think you have it wrong, but OK. Demographics CLEARLY show that a HUGE % of people in the armed services ARE from the BLUE states. (NJ/NY/CA).

But never mind.

Pete

You are trying to state revisionist history.......

Please explain how.

Simple, show any history book that states its the Russians that won the war, well outside of Russia there are none.

Someone trying to change history to suit an agenda (such as slam the USA at all costs) by trying to change they facts is revisionist history.

Such as the people who were trying to say we were picking on the poor innocent people if Nagasaki and Hiroshima when we dropped the bomb on them. And that it wasn't needed etc........

I never stated the Russians didn't help. They did, the war was shorter as a result. But we wouldn't have lost as was insinuated if Adolf had not made the mistake of attacking Russia.

Simple, show any history book that states its the Russians that won the war, well outside of Russia there are none.

I stated that the Russians did more to defeat the Germans than did the U.S. You conclude that I am arguing that the Russianswon the war. Straw Man fallacy in effect here.

But we wouldn't have lost as was insinuated if Adolf had not made the mistake of attacking Russia.

More of the same here.

Any college level History professor or high school History teacher will tell you the Soviets actually won WWII. No Western Allied battles reached the scale of the battles on the Russian Front, not even D-Day. Something like 6 million German soldiers were tied up in Russia, mostly due to the enormously long front the war was waged on, from the Artic Ocean to Turkey. The battle of Stalingrad alone knocked one million of Germans out of action. The battle of Kursk destroyed most of the German armored divisions and shattered half the German Army. If we had not even entered the war, the Russians would have defeated them, because, like it or not, Communism is the perfect governmental system for waging total war.

If we had had to face the Wehrmacht unmolested by the Russians, we would have been slaughtered at Normandy, but in real truth, we probably would have never had the chance, because the Germans would have knocked the English out of the war if they had not made the utterly stupid mistake of attacking the Russians. In addition, Russia and Germany were close to actual military alliance before Hitler committed his blunder. One shudders to think what the world would be like if we had had to face a combined German-Russian war machine, given the efficiency of Communism to deliver raw materials from the vast Russian reserves combined with German industrial know-how and military inventiveness. The most amazing thing about WWII is that Stalin and Hitler did not just simply split Asia, Africa and Europe between themselves.

I don't think they did...............we were well on our way when they got involved.

But by the same token it wasn't negligible either.

[QUOTE=KirkVining]Any college level History professor or high school History teacher will tell you the Soviets actually won WWII. No Western Allied battles reached the scale of the battles on the Russian Front, not even D-Day. Something like 6 million German soldiers were tied up in Russia, mostly due to the enormously long front the war was waged on, from the Artic Ocean to Turkey. The battle of Stalingrad alone knocked one million of Germans out of action. The battle of Kursk destroyed most of the German armored divisions and shattered half the German Army. If we had not even entered the war, the Russians would have defeated them, because, like it or not, Communism is the perfect governmental system for waging total war.

If we had had to face the Wehrmacht unmolested by the Russians, we would have been slaughtered at Normandy, but in real truth, we probably would have never had the chance, because the Germans would have knocked the English out of the war if they had not made the utterly stupid mistake of attacking the Russians. In addition, Russia and Germany were close to actual military alliance before Hitler committed his blunder. One shudders to think what the world would be like if we had had to face a combined German-Russian war





Had they combined forces.........then all bets would have been off. but they didn't. We had a fairly easy go at Normandy not because of Russia, but because Adolf did not listen to his Generals. And focused their resources elsewhere.

They were "focusing resources elsewhere" because most of their army was tied up by the Russians and they had damn little to work with as a result. You sound just like the Communist history books, where Lenin invented the lightbulb.

Oh yes...they were fighting Russians on the western front in 1937 I guess...

Not sure this is really all that comforting anymore. We had months and months to concentrate our satellite surviellance capabilities on Iraq and pinpoint those WMD, especially if they were being shuffled around as some have suggested, to hide them from those buffoons, the UN inspectors. But we came up empty. Personally I would not rely much on our intelligence gathering and processing capabilities right now.

And boneheaddoctor, go back and read your posts to get some frame of reference for how you are being perceived. Like this one:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by KirkVining
I think the rest of the world is about to re-arm because of OUR belligerent activities. Our pre-emptive invasion may have caught the attention of many who wish not to be pre-empted. The Russians and the Europeans, after four years of estrangement under Bush, have figured out they really don't need us anymore. The French, the Germans and the Russians are about to form their own alliance. The price we have paid for our "go it alone" policy is the rest of the world is about to let us do just that.



Kirk, you may want to be the unarmed guy at the gunfight, but thank god most of us don't.

A little lesson in world politics is a lot like High school. You have bullies, and they like to threaten others....And if you want to be the timid pascifist that hands over his lunch money to the bullies everyday and still gets his butt kicked because he is afraid to stand up for himself, do so......

Luckily that mindset is limited the the BLUE area of the map. If it wasn't for the RED people on the map and people like them, We would not be the USA and today you would be speaking either Japanses OR German .

We have the right and the need to be properly armed to defend our freedom."

What does your response to Kirk's post, which you quoted to make us all aware of what you were responding to, I suppose, have to do with Kirk's post?

For example, where does the analogy to the school yard bully fit in? In a preemtive strike, you are being the bully. You are attacking not because someone attacked you, but because they have something you want to physically wrest from them. It can be lunch money or oil. Pick the prize.

Also, where did Kirk's post suggest he was advocating an America without a strong military? Having lived in Europe for more than a decade, I experienced first hand the relief Europe felt that America had a very strong military, and we were very willing to use it to help them fend off the Russians. Their trust in us was based on our actions after WWII, when, had we been a nation of thieves and criminals we would have treated them like property, taken their land, possessions and enslaved them. Instead we treated our Allies like equals, and the conquered like humans. We helped them all get back on their feet. Our response after WWII was unique in human history. We did the same for the Japanese.

This earned us a loyal following in those countries that has begun to fade on its own, just because those present at the time have aged and are now in the vast minority. The following generations have not been willing to grant the US the same allegiance on faith. Our opportunity to demonstrate what America is occurs every day. But in the last 4 years we have elected to tell the Europeans we only value their allegiance if they shut up and do as we tell them. We don't even pretend to treat them as equals anymore. Which has made them learn to be self sufficient. And that is the first step toward becoming an equal, something we should not have welcomed so readily.

Step back and look at the present situation not as a set of problems to be resolved in a year or two so things can return to what they were. That doesn't happen. Look at everything we do as how it sets America up for being what we want her to be in the next century. And the one after that. If it is not apparent we cannot maintain our role of leadership with guns, bombs and cowboys for Presidents who got their foreign policy from western movie scripts, you have not really tried. Jim

Adolfs Generals told him to watch Normandy, he believed we were landing elsewhere and his ego got the best of him.........which was a good thing for us. Normandy was no day at the park. I had an uncle in the first wave on Omaha beach...they took him off in a stretcher .....I remember his stories well. He Also was amoung the first Americans to arive at Penomundei ( horrible spelling I know) at the V-1 and V-2 facilities. He died 2 weeks after my father. I had a High school gym teacher who was one of the troops cut off during battle of the Bulge......So I get a lot of my stories from people who were there firsthand. Not just in history class or History channel. I am just old enough that there were still a LOT a WW2 veterins still in the work force.

In addition, Russia and Germany were close to actual military alliance before Hitler committed his blunder

This is not true. Hitler had planned operation Barbarossa before the Pact of Steel. Stalin only entered into that phony agreement so that he could build up his military, as after the officer purges the effectiveness of the Soviet Military was severely compromised, as seen in the Finnish Campaign of '39.

Stalin knew the Krauts were coming, just thought he had bought more time.

You did it again! You quote the following clauses from Kirk:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by KirkVining
They were "focusing resources elsewhere" because most of their army was tied up by the Russians and they had damn little to work with as a result. You sound just like the Communist history books, where Lenin invented the lightbulb."

Then make the following statements:

After having made the following statement:

"Had they combined forces.........then all bets would have been off. but they didn't. We had a fairly easy go at Normandy not because of Russia, but because Adolf did not listen to his Generals. And focused their resources elsewhere."

So, did the guys you knew, your family members, tell you "we had a fairly easy go at Normandy" or did that come from another source?

Keeping up with you and figuring out what you are trying to say is getting pretty hard. Slow down, take a breath and relax. Respond to every other thread posting. Jim

Jim........The French have been nothing but backstabbing fools for decades..............remember Libya......they refused overflight to our pilots.

THey have been working against peace and against US for years. THey fought Sanctions in Iraq, because they were bribed. ANd do you know that many of the arms being turned up in Iraq are not Sadam era aquisitions, they have French manufactured munitions with dates within the last year. How do I know this? I have 2 cousins there, and 5 friends there, some have recently rotated back from Iraq. I am also thouroghly disgusted with the Germans for the same reasons. However it appears they are less deeply involved than the french.

Carville told the democrats when cornered accuse the other party of the same acts to deflect attention, The French are doing the same thing, they are affraid we will find out the full scope of the Oil for Food scam. Same with the UN.....they got caught with both hands in the cookie jar and are fighting hard hoping we give up before we find the whole truth.

The Russians............come on. Putin Puts up a friendly face and trys to stab us in the back.......same as the french.....dealing wit Saddam during UN sanctions. You can't honestly believe they are all honest and forthright. Their Economies are all struggling and they are Jealous of our realitive success. All three have governments far more socialist than democratic.

Are those the same birds we use to locate mobile chemical weapons labs? :D

Jim.........Who did you know directly that was there.......?

With the exception of Omaha beach it was realatively easy compared to what they were prepared for. Had Adolf listened to his generals it would have been far worse for us. His resources were hundreds of miles away where he believed we would land, NOT on the russian front, HUGE difference there. And totally different divisions.

I never disgreed Hitler going ofter Russia was a mistake for him. Had he done it only a month or two earlier he would not have gotten bogged down in the exceptionally harsh winter that year, The weather did more to defeat him there than the russians themselves. If it would have been a mild winter the outcome may have been different.

I was a HUGE WW2 buff through high school...... now I may not remember dates due to the years since then but I don't forget everything.

From 1939 until 1941, the Non-agression Pact was a de facto alliance between Russia and Germany. At any time during that period, the two dictators could have converted it into a direct military alliance, and in fact they held a number of talks to do so. Whatever Stalin's ulterior motives were, during this period the two nations did all the things two countries that are about to become military allies do - they had cultural exchanges, their military commands conferred with one another as they split up Poland, and their diplomats conferred on future plans to divide the rest of Eastern Europe. We all know that Hitler secretly was planning an invasion, but he was also keeping his options open. For a great web site on the subject, there is nothing like the Avalon Project at Yale, which allows one to inspect the actual source documents involved.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/nazsov.htm

Although the Non-Agression Pact was a simple agreement on neutrality, it contained secret protocols on the division of Eastern Europe. Who's to say that further secret protocols were not planned dividing up the rest of the planet?

Which simply strenghens my argument. Our success on D-Day was a lucky fluke that could have gone either way. The Russians on the otherhand, were going to wipe him out no matter what we did, and we knew it - many people in on the planning stated the purpose was as much to occupy Western Europe so the victorious Russians did not sweep all the way to Spain as it was to defeat Germany.

boneheaddoctor, this is a response to a post of yours quite a few minutes ago and now about a page or so back. Sorry.

I hear you on the basic issues you have, but in the grand scheme of things, we cannot afford to be caught up in a bunch of little, petty fly crap when, in fact, there are big threats looming. Like the Russians and their uncontrolled nuclear materials. And their unique technical skills. Quit wondering where the money is and realize they don't need much to be dangerous. They never had much and they found solutions to keep pace with us for half a century. Their solutions might not be as well rounded as ours, but they are likely equally fatal. So, yes, we should keep an eye on the Russians.

As for the French and the Germans, well, if we were not so universally hated around the world, our pointing out of their foibles with the UN program you cite might actually resonate with some people outside the US. But at the moment you can count on that story, no matter how factually supported it is, being ignored because over there it will be reported that the boogey man, George W. Bush is the one behind the charges and they all know he can't be trusted. We made our bed, now we must sleep in it.

I keep trying to get you and others to stop thinking in terms of what to do next to retalliate for what "they" just did. Who ever "they" might be at the moment. Our guiding strategy has to be based on maintaining our position of economic, social, scientific and, after a long list of fronts we can lead the world on, military strength, for the next century. WE have to become the manipulators instead of letting Saddams and Osammas manipulate us. In thirty years they will be Chinese names or Russian names again. We cannot let ourselves become so preoccupied with reacting to what "they" do that we allow ourselves to become weakened so we are susceptible to a real attack by an enemy.

Take a good, honest look at how our military is presently deployed and committed. Could we defend against another attack from an enemy on more than one front? I don't think so. At least not without escalating to using nukes. And at that point we have lost the future. So, the way I see it the answer to that question is, not if it was someone with some real military might, like Russia, teamed with some really looney nuts, like Al-Qaieda. I think we are dangerously overcommitted to this Iraq blunder, and dangerously low on total military strength.

We have a nation divided over issues engineered to divide us for political gain, things like gay marriage. Abortion. Name calling, like "liberals" and "conservatives" or socialists and nazis. Or taxes. None of this makes us stronger and more able to lead in this time of turmoil and change. They distract us, as do the slogans and sound bites, from being able to sort out what is really going on. From seeing what we should be doing.

We need to "benchmark" our world view against the world view of our neighbors -allies, enemies and others - and try honing that to be more broad and long term instead of so narrow and focussed on what just happened. Take a page from the Islamists - they are on a centuries long mission to unseat us - so our mission must be to thwart them for centuries. There is no two year, or five year or twenty five year solution. It is a centuries long solution. Keep your powder dry for when it is really needed. Jim

Jim I agree with you on the Russians....
Howver its not most of the people that hate us, its the politicians. In Iran many of the people actually like us, its the Imans and certain groups in power that are causing the problems (mostly the religious extremists) I know enough people from Iran, etc....... Most of the trouble is from the agressive minority. Personally I would pull all of out troops out of Germany and cut them off if they slip much further......Italy that is friendly would love the cash infusion.

Keep in mind most of the people that complain would be doing so regardless of what we did. Most of the trouble are the leaders..... If they complained about their leaders many places they would get tossed in the woodchipper. So they pick us to focus their anger on. They feel if they can't have what we do then we shouldn't either.

The divided nation thing........most of that are sour grapes democrats that are dead set on causeing trouble if they can't have things their way all the time. When Clinton was in office it was their way or the highway.....now Republicans are in office its the same story.....They need to review were they went wrong and thats because most people don't agree with their policies.......The country is far less liberal than it used to be.

Personally it would be nice if the world was a peacefull place. Its just not going to happen in my lifetime.

Boneheaddoctor,

I am not refuting anything based on any personal knowledge of my own, and I never said as much or suggested the same. So I don't get the question about who I knew who was there. Besides, how many people I know who were there and what they might have experienced and told me has nothing to do with the apparent inconsistency in your descriptions, on the one hand suggesting the Normandy invasion was "fairly easy" and then in another suggesting it was something else entirely ("no day at the park").

Anyway, my point was to ask you to read your answers to other people's posts and try to understand what the rest of us get from them. They often appear to be kind of high pressure stream of consciousness spurts that leave a spatter pattern that is not readily discerned. Slow down, let a post or two slip by without a response, and try to make a consistent argument. At times I see something that makes sense, but it is often hidden by other thoughts that seem unrelated. Or emotional convulsions about liberals.

My two cents. I would rather understand what you are thinking than ignore you. But it is in your hands, so to speak. Jim

I agree -- I've know quite a few Iranians/Persians in my life -- the ones I've known (with only a single exception) rather remind me of Croatians in that they seem almost American by nature. They're certainly a very different lot than other Mideasterners I've known. The handful I'm still in contact with would welcome an American invasion to unseat the zealots currently in power...

I've met and been friends with both Iranians and Iraqis. I must say, the Iranians tend to be the more cultured and even tempered of the two. Unfortunately, we are providing the mullahs in Iran the same propaganda bonanza Bush got from 9-11. With a huge American army on their doorstep, they are keeping their country as cowed with paranoia and fear as this one was. Too bad, they were ready to topple. Now. like the forces of fear in this country, they grow stronger and seek more power in the form of a nuke.

Bot, I agree with you. My concern is not a direct attack on the US. More like another Iraq or two and we will not be able to keep responding.

And I could not agree more with needing a really versatile tool box. Or with the statement that we need to support those we ask to do really scary, dirty jobs to ensure our success.

I also think one of the ways you keep safe is by having lots of allies who are willing to shield you while you shield them from dangers, all according to who handles what danger better. If having allies means you let them have a say in how the little things get done, it is a small price to pay. It should actually be part of the plan for the next century. Bring in more allies, make them dependent on you for something, preferrably economic or some other wealth we have cultivated to trade for allegiances and can fabricate more of pretty much at will, so you can buffer your boarders and your interests from enemies.

Yes, behind all this you have to carry the biggest, baddest stick too. So when the enemy attacks one of your allies because they can't get to you, you can strike back, hard. No one notices you are preemtively striking the enemy, because you are defending an ally who was striken by the enemy first. But for you, it is still a preemtive strike, technically. And the rest of your allies are grateful.

This isolationist stuff is appealing only if you get hung up on winning tomorrow to the extent that you let someone else win thereafter. Jim

I didn't buy it for one second in regard to Iraq, and I don't know enough in regard to Iran. I do know that the people who have shared this with me are happily living in America (take with large grain of salt).

This is from another post ("Taking away our guns")... but since this I started this monster... I feel compelled. ;)

I wouldn't.

IMHO I think it is very foolish that people tend to make it a black and white issue when it comes to Dems v. Reps -- We have had some terrific Dems and some terrific Reps. The way certain people ( :rolleyes: ) make it D v. R battle is simply uneducated at best. You have to look at the person and what *they* stand for. NOT the party. I had no love for most Dems. prior to Clinton, but I look at him as the person he is, NOT the party he belongs to. The same can be said about race, etc..

Bonehead, I was probably the first or second person to ask that this forum be put back up. You have no idea the help it ihas given me, but I have to be honest, I would not be happy if the lack of ability to distinquish between a person and a group causes this forum to be removed again.

Thanks for listening.

Pete

Well the problem is exactly that.....the dems seem to insist on dominating the board with negative baiting and posting of fraudulant sources. And jump all over anyone who posts anything that is pro-republican.

I don't think I explained my point well enough.

This may help.

I voted for Clinton, and I voted for Kerry.
Yet at the state and local level I voted for Reps.

Other times I have voted opposite.

Don't you see? THE PERSON, not the PARTY.

Just do me a favor, and if you think it may cause the OT to be removed again, don't do it.

Thanks,

Pete

Not sure if thats meant for the board in general or was directed at the me or the conservatives....

but there are a HIGH number of Anti conservative posts.............and I for one will not refrain unless they do.

This is not a Bash the Right forum that existed before..and thats exactly what it has become again. There a re a LOT of things that can be discussed without policical baiting and bashing...

If that is an issue for you, start a thread about it and quite clogging the issue threads up with your rants. Give us all a break.

So you are clogging the threads with impertanant stuff too. You should take your own advice.

Funny how some things work out, eh?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2091131,00.html

The cold war was really nice compared to what we have now. Lots of good defense industry jobs, a single enemy. Yeah wars are to damn complex now.

Before you lined up your army, the enemy lined up his and whoever was left standing won. These days its hard to figure out who the enemy is, even more who to shoot.

Life was simple...

You installed a missile defense shield. Assuming it works, it makes you more impervious to missiles. What did you expect them to do?

KirkVining, BoneheadDoctor, and Gottadiesel.
Father, Son, and Wholly Ghost.