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: 14
24
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnySasaki

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: JohnnySasaki

5ms? Where are you? Neighboring property to the servers? lol....

I get about the same speed though. 50 down, 5-7 up and a 999gig cap. (their unlimited..but apparently, they can't say it, despite what that costs to have with all the caps now in place)


No. I live about 33 miles from the center of Harrisburg, PA. That's a straight line though.



10ms, so not quite 5, but I've gotten pretty low before.


He meant average speed, not any given dudes speed. US has the slowest inet speed from all developed countries compared to the total infrastructure size, and most importantly available growth capital.

That means that US always had the potential to have the fastest inet infrastructure in the world, yet there is the whole profit deal, which makes it one of the slowest...

Here's a slogan for American Broadband "Has Comcast extorted you lately?".

This one we all know already "At&T, your world, delivered, to the NSA"...




posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: openminded2011
It may be true that the US has superior military technology to the Russians. But if we get into an all out war with Russia, and it ends up going nuclear, we are still capable of destroying each other utterly. So in the end it doesn't really matter who outguns who if we both end up as dust particles in the stratosphere.


We don't know that anymore. The number of Russian "shielded" Nukes probably ranges from 12-50 right now, given the Haarp sort of technology we have been playing with in recent years the vast majority of Russian Nukes (may) be obsolete. Beyond that realm we have our "traditional" anti missle systems, rockets, lasers, aegis... possibly only having to cope with a few dozen missiles ... the logistics go far beyond that, but I FEAR our Govt believes Nuclear war has become "winnable"



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: crazyewok
--
Interesting, I assumed you were a 14 year old boy.

You hate nukes?
Right.
You hate putin?
Right.

Tough times call for action, but I wager you don't have what it takes to take that step.
I figure you for a milk boy, I can't win a battle with grammer Nazi's, that is ONE battle you got, hands.

Regardless though, I have seen of enough of your post to past judgement.

Cowardice is a nasty stench, try some deodorant


We will remain at odds when it comes to US vs Russia.
America's might a full pace is vastly superior to russias.
BTW, nobody is trying to occupy them, just a good whipping with the big stick, gotta teach the kids you know.


This is just an obvious heads up for everyone.

The above statement was made by a dude with this sig;

>>>"Halo 4 Battlefield 3 Skyrim"



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: thegeck
a reply to: rock427

You are aware of how Russians fight, are you? Hitler thought he would take it in several months. Good luck with that. 3d Reich fell in result. Russians in Berlin. Napoleon thought he's up for it too. Russians in Paris. Those were the most powerful armies in history. Local conflicts ended pretty much the same. Russia is not Iraq. Don't fool yourself.


Hmm, but on the other side of it the USSR got their asses handed to them in Afghanistan.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: renden

Meh, irrelevant, I'm in my 40's, degrees, my own business, children the whole 9 yards...

My top 5 would include the same 3, but D and D is still no 1

Good love of war gaming never dampened anyone's IQ, ever.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: criticalhit
a reply to: renden

Meh, irrelevant, I'm in my 40's, degrees, my own business, children the whole 9 yards...

My top 5 would include the same 3, but D and D is still no 1

Good love of war gaming never dampened anyone's IQ, ever.



Run OFP, in an organized fashion, then maybe some airsoft, in an organized fashion, then run AKs as they should be, and then we all can talk guns and such.

I love knowing how fast a fellas mind changes about all kinds of things when his hands are so cold that he cant operate a single control on a AR platform, much less deal with a forward assist.

When that type of appreciation for Russian guns is earned, all other such topics fall right into place from that perspective.

IQ not required, just common sense.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: renden
IQ not required, just common sense.


IQ is required for just about everything, including the not so "common sense".



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnySasaki

originally posted by: renden
IQ not required, just common sense.


IQ is required for just about everything, including the not so "common sense".


Not to go off topic, but common sense is the ability to make logical connections, which can apparently be a problem for people with even the highest IQ scores.

Critical thinking is not exactly a quality appreciated in a consumerism based economy.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
first satalight?
first animal in space?
first man in space?
US had to us every thing they had to get men on the moon?

we only think US has the best army become the army says so!
if they even think you are a spy in USSR the kill you.
so why do they think they know what they have?



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: renden

originally posted by: JohnnySasaki

originally posted by: renden
IQ not required, just common sense.


IQ is required for just about everything, including the not so "common sense".


Not to go off topic, but common sense is the ability to make logical connections,
Well, you're not wrong, but you left a little out. the correct definition is: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.


which can apparently be a problem for people with even the highest IQ scores.



Not true at all. On occasion, perhaps, but not the norm.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   
The US was vastly superior to Vietnam, but they lost that war.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: rock427

originally posted by: riffraff
Frankly, I'm sick of hearing about how superior our military is without seeing any proof. If we're half as awesome as we claim to be then explain Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, The War on Terror, Etc. remember "shock and awe"? What a letdown that was. Remember MOABs? (Yawn)
Don't get me wrong. I believe that we have some tesla/alien wonderweapons but I also believe we will never use them for fighting a foreign army, they might as well not exist.


Posts like this are so irresponsibly stupid. Those "wars" were not conventional at all...the parts of those wars that were were swiftly won by the American conventional forces. For instance, the ground war for Gulf War I lasted 3 days. ..Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world at the time...Gulf War II lasted 2-3 weeks with an invasion force of 130,000 troops on the ground...Our conventional forces ARE superior to any countries in the world. I don't see what the OP is upset about. The hubris? Ok...but what did he say that was factually wrong?

The US forces are SIGNIFICANTLY superior to Russias. It isn't even close. The Russians know it...its why we see them going nuclear in their war games the second their forces are destroyed. They don't want war with us, and we don't want war with them because they've shown that they aren't afraid to go nuclear. Then no one wins.


Wow, you nailed me. I am known for being irresponsible and stupid. But in this case I am still right. Of course we are technologically superior. Did you read where I acknowledged our alien wonderweapons? Anyway my point is conventional warfare doesn't win wars. Hence Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, etc.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
The US was vastly superior to Vietnam, but they lost that war.


According to what I just looked up, the kill to death ratio from American soldiers vs Viet Cong was well over 10 to 1, and that just what we can confirm. Our troops were ordered out because of politics.

Let me put it this way, if two guys get into a fight, and the one guy is beating the living sh!t out of the other guy so bad that he's on the verge of death, and some cop pulls up and breaks up the fight, does that mean the guy laying on the floor is the winner of the fight, and the guy doing the a** kicking is the loser? By your logic, that must be the case, but here in the real world, we all know who won the fight.


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



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnySasaki

originally posted by: Willtell
The US was vastly superior to Vietnam, but they lost that war.

Let me put it this way


You've attempted to make an analogy there. Not a good try, not even close. Ups for the try though, but try again.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
The US was vastly superior to Vietnam, but they lost that war.



Not true at all, the war was lost by the politicians not the military. If the military hadn't been handcuffed North Vietnam would have been smashed in a year or 2. But the corporations had weapons to try out and the politicians had contracts to expedite for a fee. Couldn't let winning a war get in the way of profits.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: renden

originally posted by: criticalhit
a reply to: renden

Meh, irrelevant, I'm in my 40's, degrees, my own business, children the whole 9 yards...

My top 5 would include the same 3, but D and D is still no 1

Good love of war gaming never dampened anyone's IQ, ever.



Run OFP, in an organized fashion, then maybe some airsoft, in an organized fashion, then run AKs as they should be, and then we all can talk guns and such.

I love knowing how fast a fellas mind changes about all kinds of things when his hands are so cold that he cant operate a single control on a AR platform, much less deal with a forward assist.

When that type of appreciation for Russian guns is earned, all other such topics fall right into place from that perspective.

IQ not required, just common sense.


You know what Renden, I call bs on this entire commentary.

Name drops of simulations and references to whatever experience doesn't mean anything more than bagging a persons thoughts with no actual debate rebuttal other than to disregard them verbally because they are a gamer did.

While I take nothing away from the brave men of the past who's hands might have had to be "cold" out in the field, I highly doubt in any scenario with Russia "occupation" is going to be the name of the game until at the least things like artillery are out of the way... The entire basis of military superiority against Russia is our technology, technology that most often and from the start these days falls in the hands of a guy with a joy stick i his hands hundreds of miles away. Aside from that it is the IQ that builds these toys these days. Disrespect for Russian equipment? No... but a lot of guys fighting this battle might never see it that's all it will be rubble long before.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Obama could be referring to a possible war/conflict inland US. I believe Russia would struggle in that case. Now Inland Russia or oversea's is a different story. The US would get crushed.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: thegeck
a reply to: rock427

You are aware of how Russians fight, are you? Hitler thought he would take it in several months. Good luck with that. 3d Reich fell in result. Russians in Berlin. Napoleon thought he's up for it too. Russians in Paris. Those were the most powerful armies in history. Local conflicts ended pretty much the same. Russia is not Iraq. Don't fool yourself.


Had Hitler attacked in spring and Summer months, they would have taken moscow...the harsh Russian winter derailed the Nazis March on Russia, not the Russian army...Russia itself was getting slaughtered by the Nazi. They lost an estimated 20 million Russians to them!

And lol at Russia not being Iraq. Of course they aren't....but understand this. The US toyed with Iraq like no other country on this planet could. Everyone bags on Iraq...yet most countries could not do what the US did to them. A lot of people can't really appreciate just how efficient the US military was in that regard.

In gulf war I, Iraq had the largest Army. The ground war lasted 3 days. Iraqs military was no longer the 4th largest after this point...Americas military is THAT good when it comes to fighting conventional battles.

edit on 20-4-2014 by rock427 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kuroodo
Obama could be referring to a possible war/conflict inland US. I believe Russia would struggle in that case. Now Inland Russia or oversea's is a different story. The US would get crushed.


No. The reporter asked Obama what he thought about the Russian fighter pilot who was skimming a US warship stationed in the black sea. The reporter wanted to know if the Warship was ever in danger and what Obama thought Russia was trying to do by skimming the said ship over a 90 minute period. Obama responded by saying Russia did not want to pick a fight with us on this because our forces are significantly better than theirs. Which is true.

Americas force is the worlds greatest when it comes to fighting offensive wars. The American airforce is designed to go into countries and dominate their airspace. This could be achieved over the skies of Russia. The US would most certainly face losses, but they would not get crushed. If anyone would get crushed, it would be the Russians. As they no longer have their airforce to back their conventional ground forces from massive Ariel bombardments.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join