It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama: US military ‘significantly superior’ to Russia’s

page: 11
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: rock427
The US forces are SIGNIFICANTLY superior to Russias. It isn't even close.


HOW?

Care to explain some insight into your claims?


This isn't the 1980's anymore. The USSR is dead. When Russia was facing massive budget cuts and downsizing its Military throughout the 1990s, the US continued pouring trillions into theirs over the same time period. If you look at the largest defense contractors in the world, they're all American. If you look at what is typically regarded as the best airforce, Navy, and Army/Marines...its the Americans.

en.wikipedia.org...


When it comes to conventional, total-war military R&D, USSR/Russia and the USA have always rivalled each other.


No they have not. The US Military R&D budget alone is over $80 billion annually today...which is as large as Russias entire annual military budget. So no, they haven't "always rivaled one another." You could make that argument during the Cold War (which Russia lost because they couldn't keep up with the US on spending). But not since at least the 1980s... Thats 20+ years where the US has spent significantly more than the Russians. (And we're not even considering the black budget into that $80 billion dollar figure)


One advances one technological branch while the other adapts. It is absolutely absurd to claim that the USA is "significantly superior" when the USA's entire arsenal was designed to counter Russian hardware- you would be insinuating that Russia just gave up all R&D, forgot all it's military history and tactics, and this the USA is the only military industrial power in the world that makes new innovation.


You have it in reverse. The "Entire US arsenal" was never designed to counter Russian hardware (sure some components, but..). The US lead the way in innovation. Everything the US did, the Soviets tried to counter with an adaptation of their own. The US continues to lead the way in the form of innovation today. The Soviets/Russians based their procurement process on a "read and react" to what the Americans were doing. In truth, the Soviets/Russians did (and still do) not have the capacity to match the US today because of technical decencies (brain drain), and finances.


And just so you know, technological superiority is but one factor of many. For example, things like F-22s look all nice and flashy, but require dozens of maintenance hours per flight hour just to keep the thing flyable. Then what good is the integrated digital combat interface in the F-22 if the interlink is jammed and its support tankers and AWACS are burning out of the sky? And god-forbid some ice forms on external sensors, forcing false-readings into the automatic flight control systems leading the plane directly into the ground, or what if the computer feels like cutting off oxygen to the cockpit? These simple little issues have caused F-22s and B-2s to crash before in circumstances far outside the constraints of war.


LOL So now we're talking about happenstances? Should have just left this part out of your post...



And another thing that's very interesting is that the Russians are so much more advanced in some fields than the Americans. Americans just now are deploying weaponized laser systems. The Soviets had targeting lasers on satellites as far back as the early 60s. They had anti-air THEL turrets armed on mobile chassis during the Sino-Soviet war. During the 80s, they had a weaponized laser loaded on a transport plane (prototype), and pulse-laser turrets on Tunguska chassis that was capable of melting sensors and the eyeballs of helicopter pilots kilometres away.


First off, do not comment on things you do not fully understand or know about. The US and Russia have both been in the laser game for about the same amount of time. The only difference today is that the US is WAY ahead of the Russians on this technology. The Americans and Soviets routinely blinded opposing spy satellites during the cold war. There are even some old school videos from the 60's on through to the 80's where the US routinely shot down gliders with laser turrets. Much of these technologies did not leave the prototype stage, and weren't really pursued until recently.


Do you know why the Russians left these prototype weapons to rot in abandoned warehouses?


Yes, the amount of energy required to power these things at that time made these projects not feasible. The technology was too primitive...the lasers kilowatt power was too weak. In a time when resources were running thin, and both sides opted to build up their nuclear forces and armored personnel, lasers took a back seat...This is not the case today.


It's because they knew they would not be tactically useful in modern combat,


Wrong. They were not "tactically" useful back then because of the aforementioned issues I've already gone over. Now, today the technology has matured to a point where they can be implemented and add to Americas full spectrum dominance. Laser defense systems that shoot down missiles, planes, UAVs, and provide defense lethality at the speed of light will make conventional air fueled missiles obsolete. This will change modern warfare...


not like developing modern ERA armour and active defense measures for their conventional tanks (for instance). They knew the limitations of laser weapons in environmental conditions. They knew these weapons needed expensive and rare parts, and a lot of energy to operate. And yet the Americans are portraying them as invincible weapons of future combat. The two philosophies diverge here. One country with the smaller military budget invests in useful technology, while the other with a much larger budget invests it in many risky high-end fantasy projects.


I thing you're looking at this all wrong. Innovation is one of Americas greatest national assets it has. One thing about technology is that it does not stop, slow down, or cease to exist. When it comes to innovation, few would ever say that Russia is more innovative than the US...and those who would are likely Russian nationals drunk on Vodka. One thing is for certain, the US has led and continues to lead in innovation. The future belongs to those who innovate. Technological growth is both exponential and accelerating. The US understands this...and I feel the explains why America enjoys a superior conventional force second to none.
edit on 19-4-2014 by rock427 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: generik

You forgot one more example.

The Americans VS the British



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 02:31 AM
link   


If you look at what is typically regarded as the best airforce, Navy, and Army/Marines...its the Americans.


You should really say biggest, by terms of quality and what pound per pound strength USA is far from the best. I can only comment on the Navy as it's the only one I have experience of but your strength is in numbers the skill and knowledge of United States Navy is severely behind many many countries.

Don't forget US are still using ships which most countries would have decommissioned 20 years ago granted they also have state of the art ships and in huge numbers.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlubberyConspiracy
a reply to: generik

You forgot one more example.

The Americans VS the British


It wasn't just the Americans who fought the British. You can add The French, Spanish and Dutch. I take it you are talking about the American Revolution?



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Indeed.. The British do get into fights now and then.

Britain has invaded all but 22 countries in the world in its long and colourful history, new research has found.

Well, I look at it this way. It must make for some of the best map collections in the world.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 05:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: alldaylong

Indeed.. The British do get into fights now and then.

Britain has invaded all but 22 countries in the world in its long and colourful history, new research has found.

Well, I look at it this way. It must make for some of the best map collections in the world.


For a nation as small as Britain, we certainly got around.




posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: alldaylong

Indeed.. The British do get into fights now and then.

Britain has invaded all but 22 countries in the world in its long and colourful history, new research has found.

Well, I look at it this way. It must make for some of the best map collections in the world.


Hey you spelt colour right! Star for just that!

But yeah britain has been rather invasion happy.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   
People always see that factoid as evidence the English have started all those wars. What they overlook is the fact that a lot of countries we've been at war with (or in conflict with) actually attacked us.

Romans
Danish
French
Scandinavian countries (Norsemen)

Other examples were dictated by treaties and we had no choice. Subtract the Axis Powers from WW2 (we all fought them) and German allies from WW1 and, well, we've still been in a lot of wars and conflicts!

Dammit! I've almost totally failed to make the point that we're not that aggressive. This must be what it feels like being American lol



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: rock427

First off, the US does not have 700 bases around the world. I've seen the graph you're talking about. Its wrong. We do have a lot of bases around the world. But we do not have that many. Secondly, US bases are in places like Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc. as a staging ground for the ability to move troops and thus maintain logistical advantage.

US logistics are the best in the world. No country in the world can bring to bear the type of force that the US can. In an unlikely scenario where the US is forced to confront Russia on their doorstep, the US would have air superiority...the Russian navy wouldn't stand a chance, and their airforce sure as hell doesn't against F22's, F15Es, F16 bloc 61s, B1B Lancers, B2 Spirits, B52's, and a host of stealth UCAV's at their disposal.

The air war would be over relatively quickly. That leaves the much beleaguered Russian ground force essentially with no cover fire...throw in some Abrams tanks and armored battalion ground forces and the US would have no issue marching to moscow...this is how good US conventional forces are in comparison.

After the Iraq Gulf War II in 2003, it served as a massive wake-up call to the Russians. Despite what a lot of you people think, (about US fighting weak nations) the Russians did not expect the swift victory over Iraq in 2003. The Russians actually helped aided Iraq in the run up to the military conflict...building their defenses and helping them with force logistics, etc. It was after the swift US victory that made Russia recalculate their response in the event a war were to break out between them and the US. They go nuclear because they know they don't have the conventional force structure to go toe to toe.




Corrected for historical accuracy...............

First off, NAZI Germany does not have 700 bases around the world. I've seen the graph you're talking about. Its wrong. We do have a lot of bases around the world. But we do not have that many. Secondly, German bases are in places like Germany, Japan, Poland, etc. as a staging ground for the ability to move troops and thus maintain logistical advantage.

German logistics are the best in the world. No country in the world can bring to bear the type of force that the NAZI Germany can. In an unlikely scenario where Germany is forced to confront Russia on their doorstep, Germany would have air superiority...the Russian navy wouldn't stand a chance, and their airforce sure as hell doesn't against Messerschmitt Bf 109E, Focke-Wulf Fw 190, Stuker Drive bombers , Heinkel He 111, Junkers Ju 88, and a host of recon aircraft .

The air war would be over relatively quickly. That leaves the much beleaguered Russian ground force essentially with no cover fire...throw in some Tiger tanks and Panzer Grenadier ground forces and NAZI Germany would have no issue marching to moscow...this is how good NAZI conventional forces are in comparison.

After the Invasion of France in 1940, it served as a massive wake-up call to the Russians. Despite what a lot of you people think, (about NAZI Germany fighting weak nations) the Russians did not expect the swift victory over France in 1940.


Think that sounds about right'?


Remember in 1941 Russian Army was in a worse state than today due to Stalin's purges. It was basically a understrength rabble armed with WW1 antiques if lucky. Its Navy and Air Force was non existent. Russia even got is arsed kicked by Finland!



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vovin
Obama: US military ‘significantly superior’ to Russia’s


US President Barack Obama says Moscow does not want a war with Washington since it knows that the US military is “significantly superior” to Russia’s.

The Russians are “not interested in any kind of military confrontation with us, understanding that our conventional forces are significantly superior to the Russians,” Obama said during an interview with CBS News on Wednesday.


...What?

The hubris is deafening. How pathetic that the leader of the failing global empire is claiming that his country's military strength is so infallible, thus rival superpowers are too scared to challenge it.

This is the antithesis of international diplomacy. This is rhetoric that is not only extremely provocative to the Russians, but also jingoistic to the point where he expects Americans to support war against Russia.

And just for the record, the strength of conventional forces is such an old victory condition that really only applies to wars fought on one continent. What matters is geography and logistics. Russia is a regional hegemonic empire and the US is the global empire. The war between the USA and Russia will be fought near Russia. Geography and logistics would be in Russia's favour.


God is he retarded? Does he not read history books. We didn't win Vietnam and that was against a bunch of people with hardly any training hiding underground and behind banana trees. We couldn't handle them what makes him think we could take on a Superpower. On paper maybe but IRL and on a long enough timeline. No Way.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: riffraffremember "shock and awe"? What a letdown that was.


Shock and Awe was impressive. The others were political events. There's enough fire power to destroy small countries in a short amount of time a few times over. But, going after Russia wouldn't be so easy. There's plenty of history that shows that you can't fight Russia at its doorstep.

Obama's an idiot and puts the US at risk. Russia probably has a bit of shock and awe capability of its own.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: phinubian

Not a lot of realism here though, they do not understand the U.S. will roll over Russia in any conventional war,

France made that mistake and Germany twice. Why is the USA any different? Especially when Russia is in a even better position than it was in 1941?

originally posted by: phinubian
the main thing people forget is, I hear the U.S. has not been in a real war , this and that, but the last time I checked combat is combat and the more important thing is not only do we have a much more advanced and capable war fighting machine, the most important thing that you learn from any deployment is how to fine tune your resupply and logistical lifelines, also by using forward operating locations and allied launch points, we have them beat on that front also, Russia does not have mobility on all points of the globe this is a huge advantage that is just plain truth,

I agree Russia has no projection capability and wont be landing troop on US soil in the foreseeable future.

But a War with Russia on Russian turf? No the USA wont walk over Russia. When it comes to DEFENSE Russia is a hard nut to crack. USA logistical capability will be stretched to breaking point while the Russian who have had centuries experience with defending there home land will be laughing. Russia has a lot of stockpiles and hidden nuclear bunkers and on top of that excel at decentralized warfare and slash and burn tactics. Russia will Nuke there own city's before it allows them to fall.



originally posted by: phinubian
I start to wonder, there seem to be a lot of Putin fans, if we did actually go to war I think there would be a lot of defectors that will fight for Russia, at least that is how it seems to me with all of the cheerleaders.


So against refusing to underestimate your enemy's makes you a Putin supporter?

Its this arrogant RAR RAR RAR MERIKA! Attitude why the USA will lose! You could win but only if you get rid of your arrogance take a step back and realize wont be a easy fight. But alas you wont like the French and Germans before you. And that Arrogance will lead to defeat.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: criticalhit
a reply to: alldaylong

Terrible Ally, France is more willing to fight these days than England, efforts in any fights have been token gestures since WW2 and steadily decreasing "showing up" is not commitment. You sent 45,000 troops to the gulf war, half of what Saudia Arabia committed, balked on Syria, and... to be fair, no one else sent crud... but as Nato and US allies goes that makes you the cherry on top of a poop Sunday, France ran out 14,000 and it was down hill from there... and Europe is nearly a Billion strong...

Fear in your hearts, Yes... Most of Europe is really freaking comfortable these days, you have it better than we do in the States, you have lived under our Nuclear Umbrella for decades, Posters love to spout MAD because you believe "it will never happen again" on your continent because of it, a couple of centuries of British expedition-ism and 2 world wars have left a philosophy that the effort to be a global force is fruitless and that Americas efforts are daft. Perhaps "fear" is a strong word? But by Philosophy the commitment is only to remain with a MAD enabling ally you believe will prevent Russia from moving West, beyond that the alliance is basically one sided.

and WW2... your cities were pounded almost daily, Normandy couldn't have happened without us, the British "stiff upper lip" couldn't have maintained itself forever and yes, your male population was bled dry since then of it's true heart and hasn't fully recovered to this day.

Just be honest, the average brit wants no part of a fight for any reason against anyone, you can argue the individual points but we know what general public opinion is, the Americans are foolish, we've been down this road, the alliance of Nato is a hedge and nothing more....

I'm not poking fun, frankly.... mostly these are good traits, If I didn't have a giant ocean between me and the actual field of battle i would be more pragmatic too... but the bottom line the will for a real fight is simply not there at all anywhere in Western Europe... Washington IS full of war Hawks, don't actually disagree with that in anyway. But the reality is... it's a sick sad world you live in, Europe will be come for again, via many different angles not just militarily, American aggression is there for a reason, for 20 years "The Russians will never".... LOL YES THEY WILL they are doing it right now... By economy and manpower YOU and the rest of Europe should be bearing and sharing the same level of technical and man power and economic expenditure we do

1 Billion (almost) vs 300 Million by GDP and Labor, your commitment should exceed the US by a factor of 3... it doesn't even come close and the Bear is on your doorstep not ours... In fairness, your the best we have, but that's still a joke.



A typical American on a ego trip.

America wouldn't exist if not for Britain
Go and tell the families of our Servicemen who died in Afghanistan and Iraq that we have fear in our heart. I am sure they will give you a warm welcome.
Nuclear umbrella? Is that the same nuclear bombs you need Britain's help to develop.
Normandy wouldn't have happened without us? You can reverse that statement. How could you have invaded Normandy without the assault being launched from Britain. The same Britain that was fighting alone while you soft yanks eat cookies and sat by your firesides until 1941 ( The war began in 1939 if you didn't know)
Yes British cities where bombed by the Nazi's ( something the Yanks never had to face) and the British "Stiff Upper Lip" made sure we didn't succumb.
Where were the Americans when Hitler suffered his first major defeat in North Africa?
I can see why you think the French are a better ally. After all you need their help ( along with the Dutch & Spanish) in the American Revolution, so i suppose you do owe them a debt of gratitude. Pity they surrendered to Hitler, otherwise they could have been a better ally for you in WW II

As for the rest of your post, i will treat it with the contempt it deserves.


Most All Americans appreciate the loyal support and sacrifices that Great Britain has made along side the U.S. both militarily and otherwise over the past century. There are obviously Communist Russians on this thread, so we may want to recognize their misguided efforts to change the subject and pit U.S. against Great Britain, so as to distract and create a squabble among friends.
edit on 19-4-2014 by rickynews because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikeone718
The Russians sure have a lot of fans in this thread.



Communist Russians and their supporters cannot speak freely in Russia, for fear they will be imprisoned and punished, so they come onto ATS. It's great to be an American, is it not ?



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: RustyNailer
I think Obama is a clown and one of the worst things to come across our nation. But he is right, we would roll Russia easily, toe to toe. Our Military is battle test and hardened, no one want's to tangle with us at the moment. But that may not be the case in a decade or so, if we keep gutting our military while others increase.

This world sucks now, I don't even recognize it anymore, things seem to be happening so fast. If WW3 kicks off I hope I die in a flash of intense heat and light. Going home would be just fine with me...


At least you know enough off the unknown not to be scared no matter what happens. Humanity is really degrading to even lower levels it seems every day. Wake me up (totally on all levels) when it is time to really do something about it. This waiting for Humanity to reach the bottom is getting boring.
edit on 19-4-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: TDawg61
Welcome to the latest commie shill thread.Join date(like many)less than 2 weeks after Russian Crimean invasion.You fascists are soooo stealthy


Who cares what you think anyway?


Either they are fascist or commies. They cannot be both. The western corporate system controlling the politicians is from my point of view as fascist as you can get.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
we couldn't even win a war against us citizen drug addicts in our own country. I guess it would have been impossible while bringing drugs into the u.s. at the same time we waged war on ourselves.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Of course the U.S. has the strongest military in the world. There is a reason we can't fund our own programs, we are trillions in debt, our education system sucks, etc. Because we spend it all on military instead. Nothing to be extremely proud of imo, but it is what it is - we do have the strongest military, by far. China is trying to catch up however.

And perhaps he made the comment because his administration feels it is the only way to get through to Putin. Putin feels that America will just roll over at any action he does. This may be Obama's way of saying "no.. actually, we won't."

Why would anyone even bring up "taking over Russia..." that wasn't the message he was trying to get across.

It's also rather funny how many here on one hand, will talk about what a weak President Obama is.. but as soon as he makes a comment to try to show Russia that we have a powerful military, and will use it, he is slammed for being a bully. People just want to complain for the sake of it.. admit it, there is -no- action or comment he can make that would please the majority of his detractors.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

--
Yeah, that goes both ways.

Your arrogance of russian superiority would be your downfall.

Your basis comebacks result to the use of Nukes, which is leads you to being a hypocrite, why? you argue deaths, yet resort to nuclear deterrence when you don't have your way.
That is of course expected of somebody who never held a weapon and is fearful of war.
You bring a fools view with foolish thinking, fool...or tool?
While you cower behind putin with your tail tucked between your legs screaming, RAR RAR RAR!!, russia would be dissected from all sides.

The information on how its done is presented very nicely in this thread.

Your a shill who loves russia, its soyuz and nuclear stockpiles, lol


Btw, in the army...you know, the very thing you fear, I work OPS, so be afraid, very afraid....



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: crazyewok

--
Yeah, that goes both ways.

Your arrogance of russian superiority would be your downfall.

Your basis comebacks result to the use of Nukes, which is leads you to being a hypocrite, why? you argue deaths, yet resort to nuclear deterrence when you don't have your way.
That is of course expected of somebody who never held a weapon and is fearful of war.
You bring a fools view with foolish thinking, fool...or tool?
While you cower behind putin with your tail tucked between your legs screaming, RAR RAR RAR!!, russia would be dissected from all sides.

The information on how its done is presented very nicely in this thread.

Your a shill who loves russia, its soyuz and nuclear stockpiles, lol


Btw, in the army...you know, the very thing you fear, I work OPS, so be afraid, very afraid....


Lets face it, the Communist Russians and their supporters on this thread are Jealous of American exceptionalism and superiority. At some point, they need to Get Over It.




top topics



 
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join