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 puts Fear in U.S.A.

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Russia does not have a very good military record no matter which time period you look at.


The Russians Army has usually sucked but the Russians themselves are some tough bastards. While their track record outside of their own country is not good every army sent IN to Russia was devoured. I think with proper equipment and motivation they are a deadly enemy.

But none of the super powers are going to attack the other. Period.

It would be the end of the world as we know it. Any country that thanks the US will not use nukes if backed into a corner is crazy and the others will do the same. The loser will take the world down with them so they damn sure are not going to go to war over some third world country oil or no oil.

It doesnt matter about migs, tanks, subs, etc; the fact is the ENTIRE world would be for most purposes wiped out no matter who WON.

what EVERYONE USA, Russia, China, etc has to worry about is nukes in the hands of madmen.


Not ture; if a country is backed into a corner, it depends. If backed into a corner means their entire people will be enslaved by something on the order of Stalin's Soviet regime or Hitler's fascist regime, then, yes, maybe they'd use nuclear weapons. But if it simply meant really losing a war, but then they'd just have lost a war, but wouldn't be conquered, I do not think they would use nukes. It also dependso n who is leading; like is this country trying to conquer the planet or defend itself.

For example, if Hitler had had nukes and realized he was going down, he might have ordered the use of them. And the German high command might have realized how crazy that was, and assassinated him; some did attempt to assassinate him even.

Whereas if the country was simply trying to prevent itself from losing, but was losing anyway, but knew it wouldn't be conquered and the people enslaved, I don't think nukes would be used.




posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 07:41 PM
link   
This forum is so massively biased.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   
This forum is full of totally biased Americans, who have to hide from reality to ensure that they have the ' best ' of everything, one day you'll wake up, hopefully before its to late.

~ Kenshin



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 07:55 PM
link   
This place is filled with too many people who want to playdown America's ability. We've proven ourselves in wars, Russia hasn't.

You can look back in history. No matter who Russia fought, they were rather unsuccessful. They lost to an inferior to Japanese army. They lost to tiny, ill-equipped army in Finland. They lost in Afghanistan.

Russia has been considered a super power, but they've NEVER backed up that claim. They didn't do it after Napoleon, they didn't do it after WW2.

The only times Russians and Americans went head to head, Americans came out on top. America shot down hundreds of Russian pilots during Korea.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   
You both have your points, but it's impossible to tell who's better since the US and Russia have never completly gone against each other. In Korea Russian support was limited. I'm guessing that if we went to war on the land, air and sea both sides would suffer massive causalties. It's all a matter of leadership. Personally I don't want to have to find out who's better, because to find out, we'll all have to die.


ExD

posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Well, good example of american stupidity, ignorance and lack of education. Before trying to talk about history of other country&it's wars you better to know it's history. Funny thing - you know only that wars where Russia lost(is it a part of Cold War propaganda?
).

War with Japan started just before revolutions(russian emperor wants small war, that unite nation - stupid war without preparation and without objectives that makes thing even worse)

War with Finland - just shows that Stalin execute much of military experts, army was beheaded

War in Afghanistan - well - we lost 10,000; kill 1, 000, 000+, we retreat because there's nothing to do there and we have problems in our country. Am I need to say that your CIA support terrorists with arms, trains them - well, you create terror and now world suffer from this child of Cold War, good work. About your "easy wins" in last wars.. Cold War is over. What If we start support your enemies with composite AK's, Angara's, Strela's, Igla's and other military equipment, and FSB&Spetsnaz give them training - you think you can handle such war?
You already shown that you can't even support your army with necessary equipment and your soldiers must search garbage for metal to mount armor in vehicle. Even without our support there is no end nearby for war in Iraq, yeah - your army is great.

Another thing about our history - look on the map - see how big Russia, you think that we just ask our neighbours for territory and they give us what we want?
Our major problem throughout history was that Russia grows faster than it's economy, that why we sell you Alaska(we thought that it's only useless peace of ice)
stupid mistake


Well, I already wrote too much, maybe I write there later. Sorry for my English, but I think that your Russian even worse than my English



Happy New Year, I hope that New Year gives all of us only good things and americans stop talking crap about Russia
Enjoy.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   

War with Japan started just before revolutions(russian emperor wants small war, that unite nation - stupid war without preparation and without objectives that makes thing even worse)


It had objectives. Russia was trying to extend its power and land. You were driven back by an inferior Japanese army.


War with Finland - just shows that Stalin execute much of military experts, army was beheaded


It's just more excuses.


Well, good example of american stupidity, ignorance and lack of education. Before trying to talk about history of other country&it's wars you better to know it's history. Funny thing - you know only that wars where Russia lost(is it a part of Cold War propaganda? ).


I know of Russian history, from the foundation when the Mongols were driven out to the fall of communism.

Please, go find me some examples of successful Russian military campaigns. I'd be particularly impressed if you found anything where Russia didn't have massive casualties.


War in Afghanistan - well - we lost 10,000; kill 1, 000, 000+, we retreat because there's nothing to do there and we have problems in our country. Am I need to say that your CIA support terrorists with arms, trains them - well, you create terror and now world suffer from this child of Cold War, good work. About your "easy wins" in last wars.. Cold War is over. What If we start support your enemies with composite AK's, Angara's, Strela's, Igla's and other military equipment, and FSB&Spetsnaz give them training - you think you can handle such war? You already shown that you can't even support your army with necessary equipment and your soldiers must search garbage for metal to mount armor in vehicle. Even without our support there is no end nearby for war in Iraq, yeah - your army is great.


It's funny. Russia has been arming every third world country in the world. Iraq had some of the latest and best new Russian toys.

And our military has better equipment then the Russians could ever dream of. When you talk about armoring vehicles, remember those vehicles are humvees. The vast majority have been armored, as well.

When you talk about Afghanistan, you suffered the same type of losses we did in Vietnam. The Russians and Chinese were arming the Vietcong, as well. You were facing an inferior force in Afghanistan. The Vietcong had years of experience in combat against the French. Americans were also held back. Russians certainly never had to worry about public opinion at home or abroad.

Our army performed brilliantly in Iraq. We took a country in three weeks with few casualties. Russia can't even handle Chechnya.

We also took Afghanistan in less time. That's the nation Russia couldn't take in 10 years.


Another thing about our history - look on the map - see how big Russia, you think that we just ask our neighbours for territory and they give us what we want? Our major problem throughout history was that Russia grows faster than it's economy, that why we sell you Alaska(we thought that it's only useless peace of ice) stupid mistake


The main problem with Russia has been poor leadership, whether it's in the government or military.

Russia hasn't even been able to use most of the land it claims.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Personally, I think this forum is more fuller than anything of biased Russians and Chinese who like down on America, with American people who simply defend America in here; hell, look at the name of this thread even.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   
True there are a lot of anti-Americans, but not all Americans are defensive. I remember a member (who's name I won't mention) who would constantly try to put down other nations. So both sides are guilty.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
True there are a lot of anti-Americans, but not all Americans are defensive. I remember a member (who's name I won't mention) who would constantly try to put down other nations. So both sides are guilty.


Very true; I meant to say about that in my last post, but I type faster than I think sometimes.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Disturbed believer do you think russia has the same force it had in the soviet days?
No, does russia have a strong economy?
No.
Russia right now is faceing problems and are solveing them one by one.
Warmongering weaker countries to look better is not on the top of that list.
Remember also before the war with japan russia was weak as the man said.

Afghanistan rebels where aided by america so it might give them an advantage, also i think the CIA helping OSB might help too do you not agree?



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   
One thing to remember is that Russia ran into problems when the US started selling the terrorists Stingers, which made helicopter assult by Spetsnaz a pain in the @$$. Also Russia didn't have much problem invading, it was the occupation that caused problems (a bit like the US in Iraq) so it wasn't a total failure.

Anyhow sorry that this is off topic but, here in the central time zone it just turned 2005 so, Happy New Year to everybody here on ATS!!!

[edit on 1/1/2005 by cyberdude78]



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 04:51 AM
link   
How many Russian soilders died in WW2 Disturberd Diliverer? Russia held on to Afgan for 9 years with no problem 11,381 Soviet soilders K.I.A. 36,000 Wounded In Action (WIA) but Soviet Army ended up killing 1.2Million Afgahs that IS NOT getting your but kicked that is "literaly" Destroying the enemey, the soviets left becasue no matter how muh they beet the Afgahs they (The Afgahs) would not accept socialism so the only thing to do was to leave, or exterrminate the hole of Afgahistan, now stinger missles shot down few hind helecopters and it didn't hinder the campaine at all, now we lost 11,000= being there for 9 years not 9 months at this rate U.S.A. will lose 10,000 soilders in 3 more years, oh you know that the number of U.S. dead aint even close to 1400 it's 4000, and most of the socalled "civilian insurgents" in northern Iraq are the republican guard Pentagon doesn't want U.S. pop to know because they'll figure out latter on that the Iraqis made U.S. think they intimidated them into not fighting but in reality they ( republica Guard= R.G.) JUST QUICKLY SUCKED marines into the cities for some REAL bloody battles now look on most U.S. Military site for official figure of T-72 destroyed tanks in Gulf War 1= (GW1) you'll see Hussen only had aroud 85 T-72's the other 540 tanks were old t-55/64's AND most of ALL those tanks were destroyed by antitank planes /helecopters not M1's as yank propaganda wants the world to beleive that big tank battle was not a big battle it was aroud 50 M1's vs. aroung 50-60 t-55/68's and a few T-72's remember yank when U.S. sells it's F-14/15/16 and 18's to client state it doesn't sell it with the same avionics/radar/radarjamming devices nor does U.S.A. give client states the same type of dogfighting training that U.S.A. gives to it's own pilots, I'm sure you know that and if you don't than you now know it. So I'll refer to these client state F-14/15/16/18's radar/radar jammers avioncs tacts as "second rate planes/tactics/equipment" NOW Russia does the EXACT same thing, now that you understand that understand that when U.S. was going up against Russian MiG's in GF1 it wasn't going up against Russian Tanks it was going up against second rate tanks and you now think you can deafet Rus hahahaha try it bring it on we have signed a Military pact with Serbia in 99 after Kosavo bombing try ANY military thing there and U.S. will see just how outdated Russia is bring it on, you have your chance now to prove to the world just attack Serbia again and I assure you with no doubt you'll be in a battle against a nation you will not defeat (Russia) about Russia lossing a lot in kazan campaine Tzar Ivan had 6000 soilders and deafeated a 20,000 man Mongol army, Russia lost 8.6 Milion soilders in ww2 not 20= million the other 11.5Million were civilians that were killed/starved by nazi's Yanks like to imply that in was 27Million siolders Rus never had 27Million soilders, we lost that much because we took on the majority of hittlers army of look at the battle in the eastern front Germany concintrated most of thier forces in Russia the western front only had 5-6 Million German forces and U.S. was NOT fighting in western front by yourselves so it's not the same as what Rus was doing plus Russia was not prepared for the war scince the thrice accurced commies destroyed Saint Tzar Nicholas's Army back in 1919-1922 so Rus did get caught by suprise but Rus did a major job taking on Germany and japan plus U.S. did Aid Rus with a lot of equpment in return for Russia to do the hardest part of the fighting which was to take on Germany head this is the real reason U.S.A. put only 1.5Million soilders in ww2 not because U.S. has this mythilogical fighting tactics were they can use 1Million to defeat 6Million.

[edit on 1-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 1-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Personally, I think this forum is more fuller than anything of biased Russians and Chinese who like down on America, with American people who simply defend America in here; hell, look at the name of this thread even.



This forum is full of totally biased Americans, who have to hide from reality to ensure that they have the ' best ' of everything, one day you'll wake up, hopefully before its to late.

~ Kenshin


I think we are all biased assholes. We should let this topic die while it is dying



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
It is unfortunate that passionate opinion gets in the way of any facts - sad but true

A war between the usa and russia? very unlikely - but if it was to happen , what is the last defence of a nation is thousands of WMD`s , many of which are carried by ICBM or SSBM`s , who`s conventional forces have reached the combat loss threshold? MAD would be the answer - and given the state of aggression in the world - this is the future i fear for my children.



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   

oh you know that the number of U.S. dead aint even close to 1400 it's 4000,


I think this says everything anyone needs to know about your arguments.

They're just completely biased trash.



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

I think this says everything anyone needs to know about your arguments.

They're just completely biased trash.

Like american news and intelegence agencies are any diffrent?



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Disturbed Diliverer what else do you wanna debate about or have you been silenced already?


[edit on 1-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Disturbed Diliverer what else do you wanna debate about or have you been silenced already?


I gave a chance for an argument, and you didn't address my post.

It's not even worth arguing with someone who will call anything remotely positive about America Western propaganda.


you'll see Hussen only had aroud 85 T-72's


You say dumb things like this which anyone could disprove in a few seconds.


Like american news and intelegence agencies are any diffrent?


Yes, it is. Our intelligence agencies don't go around silencing people who speak out against the government. We don't build walls to keep our people inside our country.

Our media has people from the left and right wing. It's kind of hard for the media to be controlled by the government when it is made up of two parties, and there isn't a single will of the government. The majority can change hands at any time.



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer


Yes, it is. Our intelligence agencies don't go around silencing people who speak out against the government. We don't build walls to keep our people inside our country.

You do silence people and can under the new patriot act.
You dont need walls, you just need authority.
Your country's intel agencies are baised in thier review of iraq's WMD.


Our media has people from the left and right wing. It's kind of hard for the media to be controlled by the government when it is made up of two parties, and there isn't a single will of the government. The majority can change hands at any time.

The media is focussed on america and barely reports on anything outside its boundries.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join