RT -Russia ready to repel any nuke strike, retaliate – missile forces command chief

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: tweetie
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Thank you!! I think I understand what the problem was and will know next time.

No pproblem anytime!

As to the thread I think the Russians may have some technologies that may be able to counter quite a few things. If they can shut off electrical equipment then they may have some serious advantages in terms of countering a first strike.

Of course this doesnt take into account genetic warfare and nanotech weaponry which would most likely be unleashed upon the world as well... . . . .

The Russians can't shut off electrical equipment. They have to rely on physics and the only way to do something like that is an EMP with things like military equipment easily prevented using faraday cages and shielding wires. From tanks to planes to ships an emo will have no effect. And most civilian electronics that handle large voltage like cell towers will be fine. They are equiped to handle lighting strikes. Cell phone may not be so lucky depending on how close you are to the blast. And depending if enough metal surrounds the board. Or think about a metal cell phone cover. Cell service will be up on minutes after backup generators kick in. To save a computer store in a metal box you can have Internet off the cell towers ☺

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ATSWATCHER

So you think Russian generals would admit to problems with Russian forces your very funny. If they don't think conscripts are a problem why are they wanting a volunteer force? how can you train someone who's only their a year. Why do human rights watch talk about mass arrests for people unwilling to join? Who is their to pass along what they learned to other soldier? Why is their complaints in the Russian military by troops on how they are treated. Where is the supplies they need? I posted articles showing you what you asked for and you lifted the goal post and moved it. Hope you didn't hurt your back.


Tell you what feel free to show any of the articles wrong and we can discuss. But to dismiss it because you don't like it means nothing.

What ever Challenges Russia have reforming their military is really irelevant when the US say they would stil lose a fight against Russia in europe, do to the fact that US/NATO also have their Challenges. This probably means that NATO have greater problems on their side.

Wrong NATO said they needed to increase their force in Europe by placing 50000 troops near Russia to match the 40000 Russia keeps on their border which they did. NATO has 28 members with a total combined military force that dwarfs Russia. Conventionally speaking Russia would lose however no one expects a conflict to remain conventional. This is why Russia updated their nuclear doctrine to any time they feel like it. Originally under the Soviet a it mirrored the US doctrine only in retailiation of a nuclear strike.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ATSWATCHER

So you think Russian generals would admit to problems with Russian forces your very funny. If they don't think conscripts are a problem why are they wanting a volunteer force? how can you train someone who's only their a year. Why do human rights watch talk about mass arrests for people unwilling to join? Who is their to pass along what they learned to other soldier? Why is their complaints in the Russian military by troops on how they are treated. Where is the supplies they need? I posted articles showing you what you asked for and you lifted the goal post and moved it. Hope you didn't hurt your back.


Tell you what feel free to show any of the articles wrong and we can discuss. But to dismiss it because you don't like it means nothing.

What ever Challenges Russia have reforming their military is really irelevant when the US say they would stil lose a fight against Russia in europe, do to the fact that US/NATO also have their Challenges. This probably means that NATO have greater problems on their side.

Wrong NATO said they needed to increase their force in Europe by placing 50000 troops near Russia to match the 40000 Russia keeps on their border which they did. NATO has 28 members with a total combined military force that dwarfs Russia. Conventionally speaking Russia would lose however no one expects a conflict to remain conventional. This is why Russia updated their nuclear doctrine to any time they feel like it. Originally under the Soviet a it mirrored the US doctrine only in retailiation of a nuclear strike.

Dont forget that the US also sent a aditinal F-15s...... and F-22s to Italy and Germany... lol.

You dont understand what you read do you? 50 000 to match Russias 40 000 does not explain Our capabilities against Russia at all.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ATSWATCHER

So you think Russian generals would admit to problems with Russian forces your very funny. If they don't think conscripts are a problem why are they wanting a volunteer force? how can you train someone who's only their a year. Why do human rights watch talk about mass arrests for people unwilling to join? Who is their to pass along what they learned to other soldier? Why is their complaints in the Russian military by troops on how they are treated. Where is the supplies they need? I posted articles showing you what you asked for and you lifted the goal post and moved it. Hope you didn't hurt your back.


Tell you what feel free to show any of the articles wrong and we can discuss. But to dismiss it because you don't like it means nothing.

What ever Challenges Russia have reforming their military is really irelevant when the US say they would stil lose a fight against Russia in europe, do to the fact that US/NATO also have their Challenges. This probably means that NATO have greater problems on their side.

Wrong NATO said they needed to increase their force in Europe by placing 50000 troops near Russia to match the 40000 Russia keeps on their border which they did. NATO has 28 members with a total combined military force that dwarfs Russia. Conventionally speaking Russia would lose however no one expects a conflict to remain conventional. This is why Russia updated their nuclear doctrine to any time they feel like it. Originally under the Soviet a it mirrored the US doctrine only in retailiation of a nuclear strike.

Dont forget that the US also sent a aditinal F-15s...... and F-22s to Italy and Germany... lol.

You dont understand what you read do you? 50 000 to match Russias 40 000 does not explain Our capabilities against Russia at all.

Read further back it was an answer to why NATO generals were worried about russia. And why NATO decided to send more troops to prevent Russia from morning in to europe. See Russian news only said that NATO generals were worried about Russians attacking Europe and saying they couldn't stop them. They failed to mention actions were taken to prevent exactly that and the statement was used as a reason to up troops not actual fear of russia.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ATSWATCHER

So you think Russian generals would admit to problems with Russian forces your very funny. If they don't think conscripts are a problem why are they wanting a volunteer force? how can you train someone who's only their a year. Why do human rights watch talk about mass arrests for people unwilling to join? Who is their to pass along what they learned to other soldier? Why is their complaints in the Russian military by troops on how they are treated. Where is the supplies they need? I posted articles showing you what you asked for and you lifted the goal post and moved it. Hope you didn't hurt your back.


Tell you what feel free to show any of the articles wrong and we can discuss. But to dismiss it because you don't like it means nothing.

What ever Challenges Russia have reforming their military is really irelevant when the US say they would stil lose a fight against Russia in europe, do to the fact that US/NATO also have their Challenges. This probably means that NATO have greater problems on their side.

Wrong NATO said they needed to increase their force in Europe by placing 50000 troops near Russia to match the 40000 Russia keeps on their border which they did. NATO has 28 members with a total combined military force that dwarfs Russia. Conventionally speaking Russia would lose however no one expects a conflict to remain conventional. This is why Russia updated their nuclear doctrine to any time they feel like it. Originally under the Soviet a it mirrored the US doctrine only in retailiation of a nuclear strike.

I'm gathering my info don't think I've backed down, your gonna have a field day tryina explain MANY discrepancies in your beloved U.S.A's so-called "advantage" over Russia.

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: Kapusta

Unlike Russia right?

curiousmatic.com...

Unfortunately, your weak link is well... weak. Information not withstanding:

The USA has more global bases and outposts than any other nation. The USA has continually waged false wars on countries and of course, built bases.

Russia tends to have small conflicts with border states, like Georgia for example. The USA has actively (through many means) destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt (to a lesser degree), drone strikes in Yemen, several other African nations, Ukraine, and....

Seriously, Russia doesn't deserve saint status (far from it), but comparatively the USA has a horrible track record - and I kept the list short.