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.

 

Russia not really a threat

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: maxzen2004




People, don't believe the hype, Russia is no threat no us or NATO.


Only to those countries that were once part of the federation.




posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: maxzen2004

Doesn't really matter.

1. You can never be absolutely sure what they have in their back pocket because you're not supposed to know.

2. Vietnam had sticks and stones. How did that work out for the technically advanced attackers?

My point is to never assume what the other guy has because there is a reason they sit on their thrones while we sit in our chairs.

Jude11



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: jude11
a reply to: maxzen2004

Doesn't really matter.

1. You can never be absolutely sure what they have in their back pocket because you're not supposed to know.

2. Vietnam had sticks and stones. How did that work out for the technically advanced attackers?


Huh? North Vietnam had a military supplied by USSR and China, including jet fighter aircraft and surface to air missiles.

They also took immense losses.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: jude11
a reply to: maxzen2004

Doesn't really matter.

1. You can never be absolutely sure what they have in their back pocket because you're not supposed to know.

2. Vietnam had sticks and stones. How did that work out for the technically advanced attackers?

My point is to never assume what the other guy has because there is a reason they sit on their thrones while we sit in our chairs.

Jude11



The United states Armed forces were forced to fight with one hand behind their back
while standing on one leg.

All things being equal North Vietnam would have lost badly.

The political masters did got give the generals the order to win at all costs.
They thought if they went in all guns blazing The Soviet Union or China or both would come in
against the US.. The US lost the Vietnam War the North Vietnamese did not win it.
edit on Thu, 19 Mar 2015 16:56:22 -0500564America/ChicagoThursday4 by rigel4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: maxzen2004

Russian itself isnt a big deal, but BRICS is. If we get involved any further in the Middle East and Russia picks a fight with us, we will have our hands tied. We cant afford to fight two wars if BRICS is destabilizing the Petrodollar. We may have superior equipment, but we can only go as far as the loans take us, and with out the Petrodollar, that wont be far.


BRICS is a trade group. Not a military or political alliance. In fact Brazil is a part of military alliance with the US, India has formed the Trilateral agreement with Japan and the US to counter China. And the US is a key trade partner of South Africa and also key port of call for US warships. And China has most of 3 trllion dollar cash reserves in US bonds. A strong dollar is vital not only to Chinese trade but, to keeping its very economy afloat. As Russia has learned over Ukraine, China and the others will at best not take a side.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: jude11
a reply to: maxzen2004

Doesn't really matter.

1. You can never be absolutely sure what they have in their back pocket because you're not supposed to know.

2. Vietnam had sticks and stones. How did that work out for the technically advanced attackers?


Huh? North Vietnam had a military supplied by USSR and China, including jet fighter aircraft and surface to air missiles.

They also took immense losses.


And as we know now the air battles were often fought between the pilots from the US and USSR with the very best both sides could muster.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: maxzen2004
a reply to: Nikola014 Read the news, Putin is threatening Russian billionaires to bring back the money or he is going to freeze their accounts.


I don't think Putin threatened HE would freeze the accounts, I think he meant that the West might soon freeze the accounts in new Sanctions.

I suspect Putin is telling them that Ukraine is going to get uglier in the near future and more sanctions are likely. They need to hide their money better.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: maxzen2004
People, don't believe the hype, Russia is no threat no us or NATO.


Are you a Ukrainian military planner? They seemed to have followed that exact advice for the past 20 years. So far the strategy isn't paying off.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Metallicus

And quantity is its own quality.

Russia has outstanding missiles and always has. They've always been slightly ahead of everyone else in that field.


How are we getting to the ISS these days?

Seriously, let's not test the theory on Russia's nuclear weapons capabilities any time soon. I believe they are quite capable of destroying us.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: maxzen2004

I will be honest here,Russia took Crimea with the people's blessing without firing a shot. We lost a half of billion dollars of weapons in Yemen. I seriously don't trust our government to do anything right at this point.I don't think it is our military's fault. I think its who is leading us. We drop arms for the Kurds,and guess where they end up? In the hands of ISIS. But I'm supposed to trust this government to run a war? I think not. We may be good at killing civies,and blowing up infrastructures,but winning wars? No. Afghanistan is still in bad shape by the way,and it still harboring Taliban.

Russia got their ass kicked in Afghanistan only because we were supplying the Mujahideen with weapons and helped to create the Taliban.Good job. If we go to war with Russia, I wonder what monster we will create next? If we go nuclear,we are all screwed.No doubt about it.The fall out will do us all in.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: maxzen2004

Seems to me you don't really believe that. Creating a thread to try and reassure your failing confidence is what this seems like. You're frightened and that's ok, you should be, Russia is a formidable opponent.

Your post reeks of arrogance and ignorance



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

I dont think you understood me. Wars cost money and BRICS is trying to undermine the Petrodollar. Russia may not be able to overpower our military, but they can destroy our economy if they tie us up with war as BRICS makes its trade deals.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad

And we lost Vietnam.
Plain and simple,the people did not want a war with a country that had been at war for more years than anyone could count. I doubt that Americans are going to continue wanting to be at war now either. They did after all vote Obama in thinking he would close Guantanamo and pull us out of Iraq where we never belonged to begin with.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: MrSpad

I dont think you understood me. Wars cost money and BRICS is trying to undermine the Petrodollar. Russia may not be able to overpower our military, but they can destroy our economy if they tie us up with war as BRICS makes its trade deals.


And I covered BRICS members. Brazil who is now pushing for closer trade ties with the US because trade with China has slowed, South Africa to whom the US is its more important export market, India who just signed a bunch of trade and defense deals with the US and China who needs a strong US dollar for its exports and has its entire economy secured by US dollar reserves. Every member of BRICS besides Russia is a major trade partner with the US and pushing for more trade ties and all of them require a strong US dollar. None of those countries are going to wreck their own economies to try and help Russia. And do you know how many trade deals BRICS has reached in 6 years? Zero. Not a single one. Which is why IBSA was formed India, Brazi and South Africa without China and Russia. The cold hard light of reality is that most of BRICS has more trade loyalty to the US than they do with each other.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: maxzen2004
I was in a Nuclear missile battalion and unless Putin is crazy they will never be used.

It will go very bad for Putin if he pushes the envelope.


Lol "if Putin is crazy". Russians are a very different culture than the US, and I think in general their government would be more likely to use nukes if provoked.

There was also a post in a thread earlier about how America's nuclear missiles are under maintained and under funded compared to the Russians. So they may have lower quality but ours aren't being maintained. The post in the thread can be found Here
The cold war may have ended for us but I don't think it ended for Putin's Russia.

I have to ask a question to all ATS; if your country was being undermined economically by it's enemies would you just idly sit by and take it? Back down? Or would you retaliate?
edit on 19-3-2015 by asmall89 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: maxzen2004

Russian itself isnt a big deal, but BRICS is. If we get involved any further in the Middle East and Russia picks a fight with us, we will have our hands tied. We cant afford to fight two wars if BRICS is destabilizing the Petrodollar. We may have superior equipment, but we can only go as far as the loans take us, and with out the Petrodollar, that wont be far.


Heres how you fix BRICKS. Cut them out of all worldwide trade. easy to start a civil war in India with its class system. Brazils on the verge of civil war too. CHinas tied into the petro dollar and wont attempt anything really in the short term.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: maxzen2004



These are the facts, they have more tanks but we have the Apache.


As usual, all recent fight by the US have been with air supremacy. I know of at least one SHORAD that the Apache boys were terrified of! A SHORAD using a far infrared laser guidance beam, completely impossible to jam.



We conquered Afghanistan in a couple of months, Russia got their ass kicked after 10 years!


Excuse me, not that I'm against US, but the US have helped a lot the Mujahideen like no one else than OBL by providing manpad...



The Russian military equipment is of poor quality and the soldiers are very poorly trained.


They still have terrific missile technology. Good luck for the air supremacy!



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
I would agree that Russia is not really capable of decisively defeating the US and her allies in the event that war broke out, however, this is only true in the case of total war. In the sense of a limited war Russia could "win," depending on her objectives. The reasons for this are not so simple, but I will attempt to provide some of my reasoning. A total war that involved the mobilization of the entire US economy and infrastructure would definitely be able to defeat Russia in a conventional war, but it is extremely unlikely that the US would engage in such a war. War with Russia is much more likely to be of a limited nature, and consisting of only a fraction of the US combat power. Currently the US has only a small ground force in Eastern Europe, and this force would not be sufficient to combat the manpower the Russian army could bring to bear in the region. The US could bring strong air power to bear in the region, but air power alone would not be enough if we were attempting to wage war against the entire Russian nation, as opposed to simply achieving more limited objectives, perhaps of pushing Russian forces from a particular region or state that they've invaded, etc...

The advantages that Russia would have in fighting on her home soil would be great. Russia would possess interior strategic lines, meaning that they have a shorter distance to transfer materiel to threatened sectors of a front, which would play a vital role if a war involved the need to position allied forces around the whole of Russia's European border. If I were in command of waging war against Russia one of the primary strategic objectives would be establishing air superiority. I personally feel that the US should adapt "swarming" tactics, and continue to develop systems that allow for decentralized command structures, giving freedom of action to individual units, who, using the swarming tactics, could coordinate in real time as combat progresses. Such a battle plan is most useful on a tactical level in my opinion, although theoretically it could be used on operational and possibly strategic levels as well. I also feel that the US should, in the future, adopt the use of quad-copter drones equipped with reconnaissance capabilities, and who could coordinate with each other in large numbers to provide certain vital information on the tactical and operational levels. The technology exists to my knowledge. There needs to be a system whereby these small drones, which are deployed by the thousands and which would have to be visually identified by the enemy due to their dispersed nature, communicate with ground systems possessed by each ground formation, whereby a 2D or 3D picture of the battlefield is sent to these units, who can then use them to make critical decisions and coordinate on the fly with other ground units. But I digress...

So Russia basically would have advantages that stem from fighting on their home soil, or very close to it. It is important to realize that even inferior hardware, if deployed in much larger numbers than an enemy's superior hardware, can be enough to win a battle or influence an operation or campaign, and even an entire war. It would depend on how a force used this inferior hardware. For instance, let's look at the Gulf War. The US had a huge advantage in armor because the M1 tank could not only see the enemy first, even when visibility was low due to sand, but could shoot from a farther distance. So the Iraqi armored units, using inferior tanks, were at a disadvantage. But had they been aware of the US flanking maneuver to the west, they could have theoretically prepared themselves to negate these US advantages, and then launched their own attack or counter-attack with superior, concentrated numbers, and possibly could have caused problems for the US. As long as the inferior armored units are able to penetrate the armor of the enemy tanks, something could be done. This quantity vs quality approach could even be applied to air power in my opinion. I imagine that some nations have adopted this approach already.

For instance, it would be difficult even for a cutting-edge fighter to expect to inflict casualties on the enemy if it has to constantly defend itself from attack by a much larger enemy force. It is hard for a handful of fighters to avoid a large number of enemy fighters, even if those enemy fighters are inferior in terms of quality and capabilities. As long as the enemy jets can lock on and fire missiles, there is a threat. A dogfight between one or a few planes, against the same number or a slightly larger number of enemy planes, is no contest...The superior aircraft should win, because they can use their superior capabilities to obtain an advantage. But it is hard to obtain an advantage against a much larger number of enemy planes, if you have to constantly worry about all of them. This is a highly-generalized way of looking at the situation, and there are numerous factors, but I just want to stress that SOMETIMES quantity is more important than quality. Especially if a side is willing to accept losses, and thus build military hardware that does not provide any defensive capabilities, but powerful offensive capabilities such as speed and firepower. The US would never adopt such measures, because casualties matter a lot to us. Other nations might adopt such measures however.

Anyway, the US would have to spend so much money to send an adequate fighting force to Europe, which would have to include ground troops. Attempting to wage strictly an air war against Russia could never succeed, if this war was over Russia territory, because Russia would always be able to deploy a larger number of air resources and air defense systems. Radar has made stealth bombing attacks difficult to pull off with a high degree of safety, and the US could not deploy stealth bombers in large enough numbers to actually wage a strategic or even tactical air war. They could only strike limited targets. I view a strategic air war as including an extended target set, while a tactical air war focuses more on military targets only. Usually the former is employed in a large scale or total war, while the latter is used more in limited wars, as a rule of thumb. Russia's aircraft could be used for defense against bombers. US fighters attempting to protect bombers would have their hands full against a larger number of enemy fighters. Then there are ground SAM defense systems, AA systems, etc., which would pose a threat to an air campaign. The US could not hope to use stand-off weapons such as missiles to inflict any meaningful amount of damage on the enemy's ability to make war. It would depend on the exact circumstances and objectives however. The US could push Russian forces out of Ukraine, if they invaded, for instance, but this would still be costly in terms of money, manpower, and materiel losses. A total war would be unimaginable due to the advanced combat power modern technology brings to the table. Even smaller units possess extreme firepower at present. So imagine a war involving millions of Russians, as the Russians do have some modern equipment. Even their older equipment is dangerous, if used correctly. So there are just so many factors that would play a part in such a conflict, but the bottom line is that a US victory is not given. This is not even mentioning the threat of nuclear weapons, although I highly doubt either side would use them offensively.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: maxzen2004


People, don't believe the hype, Russia is no threat no us or NATO.

It will go very bad for Putin if he pushes the envelope.



You do not have to able to win a war to be a threat to peace.

And a threat to peace is a threat to all of us.



posted on Mar, 19 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: MrSpad

And we lost Vietnam.
Plain and simple,the people did not want a war with a country that had been at war for more years than anyone could count. I doubt that Americans are going to continue wanting to be at war now either. They did after all vote Obama in thinking he would close Guantanamo and pull us out of Iraq where we never belonged to begin with.


Politically the US lost Vietnam. According to one of their generals we had them beat basically and if we held out for a few more months it would had been over.




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join