It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Logarock
originally posted by: AllSourceIntel
originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: AllSourceIntel
Iraqi proficiency with Russian weapon, tanks mainly, really wasn't a factor against our anti tank weapons and tanks. It wouldn't have mattered if they had been Russian troops with top tanks, some of which were used by the Iraqis on behalf of the Russians for a live fire test. Our anti tank air platforms can see and fire on Russian tanks so far out that the Russians, after their radar has been destroyed by same, cant even see them. Hard to overcome those sort of tactical advantages.
And the Russians really haven't upgraded enough to counter this factor.
Does anyone who debate these issues have any military experience?
First, proficiency and training does play a large factor. There are denial and deception tactics and strategies (camouflage and decoys for example) which has fooled the U.S. in the past (in the Gulf War as well), there are formations and movement patterns, techniques, tactics, and strategies...all designed to limit casualties in that manner.
Yes I have plenty of military experience. You don't sound like you do nor do you sound like much of a student of modern warfare.
"In the Gulf War as well"? We destroyed quite an impressive array of hardware and mechanized unites, the 5th largest such army in the world at that time. They were simply obliterated. The whole of our primary armor unit, the Big Red 1 didn't suffer a single fatal casualty in the entire 1 week, LOL, campaign.
originally posted by: GargIndia
a reply to: Logarock
Bluster is not a replacement of results. The military victory in Iraq and Afghanistan were impressive but what happened thereafter was not.
However problem is that your adversaries have learnt from your war performance. They have built weapons since to fight effectively with your armies.
You cannot count on your past victories anymore.
Soon time will come when your aircraft carriers will no more look formidable as several go down in a single day. The smart people avoid such eventualities and not resort to bluster.
It is time to realize the limits of your military power. There is no benefit of causing pain to your own population and to others just for ego of some elite.
originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
Mr. Putin better like glass, because regardless of what he does, we (and our allies) would turn his entire country into it.
He keeps referring to "the West"... but forgets that it includes allies all around him.
originally posted by: daaskapital
NATO has taken the threats seriously, and have begun constructing a rapid response force as a result.
What kind of evidence you want? Please specify in detail the kind that will satisfy your curiosity.
I'm not aware of anyone saying that Russia claimed it would use nuclear weapons on Ukraine. I could be wrong, though.
"If it comes to aggression against Russian territory, which Crimea and Sevastopol are parts of, I would not advise anyone to do this," Lavrov said during a press briefing. "We have the doctrine of national security, and it very clearly regulates the actions, which will be taken in this case."
The minister was responding to recent statements made by senior Ukrainian officials promising to retake Crimea. Russia's current military doctrine authorizes the use of nuclear force against a large-scale conventional attack by regional foes.
The doctrine, revised in 2010, states: "The Russian Federation reserves the right to utilize nuclear weapons ... in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation involving the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is under threat."