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: 12
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Isn't that what Goliath said to David ?
edit on 19/4/2014 by adarma because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

You seem to forget a few points !

1. Russia has nukes, beat then hard and Germany would be glass
2. Russia has the most advanced missiles in the world, good bye jet fighters
3. Russia without it's missiles have torpedo's that travel at 700kmh under water, good bye ships
4. Russia has more men, they are hard and shaped charges in little RPG's can take out tanks.
5. Whats costs Germany 10 Euros to built will cost Russia 1 Euro (Learn from last war, Panza tanks)
6. Russia has gas/oil Germany does not
7. Russian helicopters are world renound for lifting big weights
8. China, well I can only guess if they helped Russia

The good news is that I think this is a phony war to push up gas prices and to force the public to accept more military spending so I guess we will never know the results of push coming to shove.

Did you forget to think about how easy it is to knock out all the satellites, cheap and in just a few days using little bit of lead shots ?

p.s as a poster here I do respect you.




edit on 19-4-2014 by VirusGuard because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: adarma
Isn't that what Goliath said to David ?


Neither David nor Goliath had military tech designed or developed by Stark Industries.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: rickynews
---
You know what I'm saying?

Hypocrisy is soooooooooo defining on this thread.

My favorites are,
1. American hasn't won a war since WW2.
I'm sorry, russia has?
2. America is broke.
I'm sorry, we are still actively engaging in what we do best.
3. America is a bully.
....and russia is a saint? LMFAO.

Apparently a win is a win to some of these people, regardless of numbers.
My favorite is when "one" poster said we still lost vietnam, yet failed to acknowledge the massive pile of dead the enemy had in contrast, by those numbers, NO NATION CAN WIN.

Except us.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: rock427

Two words for you. Paper Tiger. Glass Jaw. The weapons dont win wars....its the people using the weapons. The fact of the matter is the United States isnt used to getting hit. Let alone hit first. We are kinda like Mike Tyson was in his prime. If you are stupid enough to stand in the middle of the ring and go toe to toe with us you are going to lose. If you drag the fight out dont get overly aggressive and punish us when we make mistakes they have enough firepower to win any war. People forget that you need troops and a population back home that SUPPORTS the war to be effective. By now people in our military know they are just paid goons and morale really isnt that high. The people wont support a war with Russia either. There goes two of the things you need to fight a war thrown right out the(window). Manpower and financing. Just because we look good on paper doesnt meant the war will be fought under all the right circumstances for our weapons to have maximum effectiveness.
edit on 19-4-2014 by rustyclutch because: .



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

If body counts,,win wars, then,,a perfect soldier would look something like this guy,,



and this would have worked,,





but it didn't.



But this does,, and always has,,,






always has,, but know one likes too admit it.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: riffraff




If we're half as awesome as we claim to be then explain Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, The War on Terror, Etc.


We didn't lose the Korean War. We kept North Korea (NK) from taking any South Korean (SK) territory, but one could consider it a stalemate since NK didn't lose any territory either. Technically, we are still at war with NK.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, and the rest were failures from the start because we didn't have any clear-cut objectives. We can't win if we haven't even figured out exactly what it is we're trying to accomplish.

Afghanistan is like the modern Scotland of old. They might be the little guy, but they are fierce, determined, and resilient.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: rustyclutch
a reply to: rock427

Two words for you. Paper Tiger. Glass Jaw. The weapons dont win wars....its the people using the weapons. The fact of the matter is the United States isnt used to getting hit. Let alone hit first. We are kinda like Mike Tyson was in his prime. If you are stupid enough to stand in the middle of the ring and go toe to toe with us you are going to lose. If you drag the fight out dont get overly aggressive and punish us when we make mistakes they have enough firepower to win any war. People forget that you need troops and a population back home that SUPPORTS the war to be effective. By now people in our military know they are just paid goons and morale really isnt that high. The people wont support a war with Russia either. There goes two of the things you need to fight a war thrown right out the(window). Manpower and financing. Just because we look good on paper doesnt meant the war will be fought under all the right circumstances for our weapons to have maximum effectiveness.


Mike Tyson in his prime was unstoppable. He would toy with people because he could. So that might not be the greatest comparison.

The US military is a force designed for full spectrum dominance...meaning owning the battlefield and determining the pace of the fight...One thing Iraqi forces were quoted to have said that they could not believe the fast pace with which the Americans moved.

The very first thing that the US would do would be to establish air superiority...taking out SAM sites and enacting a "No-Fly Zone" over the battlefield. F22s, F18s and F15Es would establish and maintain air superiority. Russias Navy would also be toast. Tomahawks, Apaches, B2's, B1's, A10s, and B52's would hammer Russian armored positions as US tanks roll in and clean house...Without an Airforce to back them, Russias military would be sitting ducks.

A few things to take into consideration. Americas military is a lot bigger than Russias. Russia does not have the force stamina to go toe to toe with the US. Americas Navy, Air-force, and military is a lot bigger and more modern than Russias. In a conventional war, it would result in Russia losing most of its conventional forces to a bigger more modern military.
edit on 19-4-2014 by rock427 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I hope the World knows that this childish Government, IN NO WAY, reflects the hearts, minds and intents of the American people. That what they say is NOT what America is saying. These people do NOT speak for us!

Makes me angry to watch this idiot drag the whole world back into the Cold War Era. Posturing our military power like it's some kind of fight dog.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: rock427

You lost me when you started to claim that the USA is superior because it throws more money at R&D, as if capitalism itself does not dictate that the higher the demand (money thrown at contractors), the higher the price of the commodity will be. Keep spending those taxes and maybe those $2000 lug nuts will beat those pesky terrorists some day.

How much will the flyaway costs of the f-35 be again?

And where's those hundreds of billions/trillions that just magically disappear every year from the Pentagon? Hint: they don't go into black projects, they go into private accounts.

edit on 19-4-2014 by Vovin because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: crazyewok

--
Yeah, that goes both ways.

It sure does!


originally posted by: Arnie123
Your arrogance of russian superiority would be your downfall.


Arrogance of russian superiority? Really?

I have pointed out Russia limitations!

But cause I think Russia wont be a easy fight I am arrogant?

HYPOCRISY!


originally posted by: Arnie123
Your basis comebacks result to the use of Nukes,

Gee Russia not a nuclear power? Wow first I heard!



originally posted by: Arnie123
which is leads you to being a hypocrite, why?

Feel a bit embarrassed for you....
I think you dont turn what the meaning of the word hypocrite is.

hypocrite
[hip-uh-krit]

2 nouns

noun
1.
a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2.
a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

But I forgive you being a US GI. I know your making a effort.


originally posted by: Arnie123
you argue deaths, yet resort to nuclear deterrence when you don't have your way.

Gee as I said last time I checked RUSSIA HAS NUKES!



originally posted by: Arnie123
That is of course expected of somebody who never held a weapon and is fearful of war.

Only a fool or a psychopath is not fearful or war.



originally posted by: Arnie123
You bring a fools view with foolish thinking, fool...or tool?

No someone with common sense. Nuclear war = all dead



originally posted by: Arnie123
While you cower behind putin with your tail tucked between your legs screaming, RAR RAR RAR!!, russia would be dissected from all sides.

O so again cause I don't think that a war with Russia would be easy or the outcome 100% Certain Im a Putin lover?

Great logic......NOT

And you call me the arrogant one


I hate Putin, I just dont think a Invasion of Russia would be a easy thing and Russia a country not to underestimate.

But that makes me a shill? HAHAHA Ok.

In a march to Moscow its people like you that will be the first to end up dead.


originally posted by: Arnie123
Your a shill who loves russia,

Really that's your argument.
Pretty weak army boy.

Because Im refusing to underestimate Russia Im a shill great logic


originally posted by: Arnie123
its soyuz

So cause I respect the Soyuz as a good bit of tec and dislike the shuttle program as a waste of dollars and disagree with the direction NASA went after Apollo that makes me a Russia supporter?

HAHAHA ok

Guess free speech is only ok in the USA is its conforms to patriotic lines



originally posted by: Arnie123
and nuclear stockpiles, lol


I hate Nukes.

But Russia has them, what your point?

originally posted by: Arnie123
Btw, in the army......

Aww how cute have a medal


originally posted by: Arnie123
you know, the very thing you fear, I work OPS, so be afraid, very afraid

Afraid?
With you simplistic drone like outlook and (lack off) critical thinking skills I would be surprised if you know what end of the gun to point at me

Plus only a angry 14 year teenager makes threats at people over the internet



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vovin
a reply to: rock427

You lost me when you started to claim that the USA is superior because it throws more money at R&D, as if capitalism itself does not dictate that the higher the demand (money thrown at contractors), the higher the price of the commodity will be. Keep spending those taxes and maybe those $2000 lug nuts will beat those pesky terrorists some day.



This post is about what I expected from you. And you claimed that Russia/Soviets and the Americans "rivaled" one another in terms of Research and development...clearly not the case when the US spends significantly more in that category than the Russians. The US uses R&D money to fund lasers, Rail-guns, hypersonic missile projects, "secret" space planes, UCAV's, Robotics, Missile defense, and so much more (just check out the "star wars" type sh*t DARPA is working on).



How much will the flyaway costs of the f-35 be again?

And where's those hundreds of billions/trillions that just magically disappear every year from the Pentagon? Hint: they don't go into black projects, they go into private accounts.


Your problem is you look at things with a very narrow perspective. As if corruption is only to be found in the US...meanwhile the oligarchs with their mafiaso mentality are perfect saints in third world Russia... LOL

Me and you are probably on the same side on a lot of issues. I just choose not to pull the wool over my eyes when it comes to this type of argument. China (which has a much more capable military IMO than the Russians) has said that they do not have a force capable of countering Americas (a PLA General said this on his trip to several American military facilities in the US).

As for the black budget, it does exist, and it is estimated to be between $50-$100 billion annually. The F117, B2, etc are all black budget relics.



edit on 19-4-2014 by rock427 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickynews

Lets face it, the Communist Russians and their supporters on this thread


So again refusing to underestimate your enemy = a Russia supporter?

Ok great logic

Logic Germany had. Guess what happened to them?



originally posted by: rickynews
are Jealous of American exceptionalism and superiority.

/yawn

Last time I checked American were the same Human meat bags as every other humans on earth.

You have the world super power yes. Britain did once and so did Spain and Rome. Super powers come and they go. Get over it.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Vovin




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.


Uhh, as much as I dislike the current president (of both countries), he could literally not be more correct. The US would dominate any current force on earth in a conventional war. It's not opinion, it's fact. The only reason Afghanistan and Iraq took so long (which, btw, the Russians lost in Afghanistan before, if you remember correctly) is because the enemy is so cowardice as to hide in caves and resort to guerrilla warfare, which is much harder to fight against, especially when your enemy knows your own rules of engagement and uses it to it's advantage routinely. Also note that the US usually has the backing of NATO.

Russia wouldn't even stand a chance. It would be the Gulf War all over again. You don't fight the US military in a conventional war and expect not to get your sh!t pushed in. We just have waaaayyy too much military funding for that. On top of all that, now we also have well over 10 years experience fighting guerrilla warfare as well, and we're starting to get fairly good at that as well.

I understand that you're probably not American, and you hate hearing this, as you most likely convinced yourself it's all propaganda or something, but trust me, we know war. The only reason it appeared as though we might have lost some of our battles in the past, is not because of lack of strength or ability, it was because we simply either opposed the wars (at home) or weren't allowed to continue unleashing the fury from the higher ups. If we get into a full fledged war with Russia, it would be on like donkey kong.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 12:45 PM
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 baseline. I agree that the USA is failing more or less, at this point, but Obama HAS to maintain this kind of rhetoric. It is not pathetic, and if it is pathetic it is even more necessary. He must show that America is powerful, standing up. Just like Putin has to show that Russia is powerful (of course Putin is the underdog here,he needs to reclaim the lost glory of his people, America needs to maintain its glory).

Now, Americas military might is almost Infallible. It is certainly greater than that of Russia. But Americas foothold may be slipping. We do not know how long it will last, but I think it will take a couple of decades before see America dethroned.

And if America falls, the west falls. Europe is growing old and weak. We here in Europe depend on America. The bell is tolling for Europe. We will fall with you. And perhaps the Chinese will be the new masters of the world. Or not. It remains to be seen.

My point is that there are no superpowers rivaling the US. Not quite yet, at least.


originally posted by: VovinThis 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. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


I agree with this. The powers that be in Russia are extremely sensitive right now and they are looking to right wrongs. They want to get even. They want to restore Russia. This is dangerous, but I think they are still somewhat reasonable. They will take what they can, but they will settle for what they can take. I do not think that Russia wants to spark a war with the US. This would be in the interest of no one.

Putin, and Russia, simply want everyone to know they are though. Just like the US would, if they had not ruled the world for the last century.


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.


I'm no military expert, but it seems to me that in this day and age a war fought on your own soil is a war lost. How would the geogpraphy and logistics be in Russias favor? If a war is fought near Russia, it is fought in Russia (at leas in Putins thinking). And there is always the treath of nuclear weapons. I find it hard to imagine a war between the US and Russia, fought near Russia. A full-scale war like this would benefit no-one.

But, to be fair, I guess no-one benefited from WWI either...



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Vovin

That is the most Dumbass statement i ever heard
come from a President
and i've been living in this country for almost 60 Years.

What a dipstick
edit on 19-4-2014 by bluesman1955 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: alldaylong

Now that's real. You've encouraged my Irish/UKish pride. Reminder to Americans that don't have respect for the UK, where would we be without British intelligence? We wouldn't even have James Bond films! America wouldn't be a superpower had it not been for the UK. IT would have gotten sliced up between the European countries.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: rock427

The Mike Tyson I remember toyed with no one. You are thinking of Roy Jones Jr. maybe. I remember Tyson knocking people out in the first round. I dont think you fully appreciate how massive Russia truly is. It sits on 2 continents. Lets stop talking about conventional wars. The United States doesnt fight conventional wars. Napalm, agent orange, depleted uranium, white phosphorous, clusterbombs.....all weapons that are against "conventions". There is nothing you could do to the Russians that would stop nuclear armageddon. Do you know how many nukes it would take to hit all of Russias sites? Do you know there are ICBMs in russia just riding around on trains like regular cars? Did you know they have underground bases as well? Only a total fool wouldnt nuke the United States if attacked. Why let you even fly bombers over the country and ruin infrastructure if the end result is going to be nukes flying anyways. Better to nuke you and take out as many toys as possible first and then deal with the response. Half the world already doesnt like America. They would cheer it on if it happened. If America nuked Russia preemptively the number of countries that hate us would double. Therefore we do a lot of talking but realistically we arent going to nuke anyone first. Its funny how a country not even 300 years old thinks they are the better than everyone else. How little we learn from history.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: rustyclutch
a reply to: rock427

The Mike Tyson I remember toyed with no one. You are thinking of Roy Jones Jr. maybe. I remember Tyson knocking people out in the first round. I dont think you fully appreciate how massive Russia truly is. It sits on 2 continents. Lets stop talking about conventional wars. The United States doesnt fight conventional wars. Napalm, agent orange, depleted uranium, white phosphorous, clusterbombs.....all weapons that are against "conventions". There is nothing you could do to the Russians that would stop nuclear armageddon. Do you know how many nukes it would take to hit all of Russias sites? Do you know there are ICBMs in russia just riding around on trains like regular cars? Did you know they have underground bases as well? Only a total fool wouldnt nuke the United States if attacked. Why let you even fly bombers over the country and ruin infrastructure if the end result is going to be nukes flying anyways. Better to nuke you and take out as many toys as possible first and then deal with the response. Half the world already doesnt like America. They would cheer it on if it happened. If America nuked Russia preemptively the number of countries that hate us would double. Therefore we do a lot of talking but realistically we arent going to nuke anyone first. Its funny how a country not even 300 years old thinks they are the better than everyone else. How little we learn from history.


I'm referring to the few occasions when Mike Tyson would drop his guard and dare the other fighter to punch him. He did this a few times over his career. On a side note; You need to learn to break your posts up into paragraphs to make it reader friendly. When you don't, you have a giant wall of text that nobody wants to read (like the above).

Now on to your post. Sure, Russia is massive geographically speaking. But most of its population is located on the eastern front of the nation. Most of Russia is uninhabited. What does this mean? It means that there are significantly fewer strike options required to get the job done. Once you take out the SAM sites, and limited number of military bases, you essentially have nothing to stop the US bombardment of Russian factories, government offices, Armed forces, etc (unless nukes are used as a last minute retaliatory act). However, actually invading Russia and holding it (ala Iraq 2003) would be impossible and incredibly expensive.

Conventional forces refers to conventional warfare. Your tank vs. my tank, your jet fighter vs. my jet fighter, your ships vs. my ships, etc. Americas Navy and Airforce would make short work of Russias smaller less modern airforce and navy, leaving the rest of Russias forces at the mercy of the advancing superior American forces.

All of this would likely lead to a Nuclear exchange which is obviously not in either countries interests...which is why you will likely never see an armed conflict between the two because it would quickly escalate out of control. however, if you were to deny Russia the ability to project power on a neutral playing field (Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Europe in general), than you would see that the US could easily repel Russias forces quite easily in such an exchange. Russia just doesn't have the money, airforce, or Navy to combat a military like Americas on said neutral turf. I think that is what we are really referring to in the event of an actual military armed conflict between the two.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Vovin

The Americans have a great army. Their equipment is superb(EMI not taken into account). It has one of the most powerful armies in the world. But why would anyone in a sane mind want to put that to test? History proved one too many times that if you invade Russia, you will have a very bad time. Russia was never an offensive nation.It sucked at that. All offensive wars were a failure. But defence... Anyhow, I'm pretty sure, that if someone would invade the US (IF), they would be kicked out with pretty much the same speed. So let's not listen to suck silli bull.hit. A war between the US and Russia would be the last war ever. What nutcase would want something like that?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join