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.

 

The west cannot be superior in everything

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Just as the topic says the west cannot be superior in everything too russia or other countries. That in current times is impossible. I believe its much more even than most people here believe. Only russia has a lack of money so that they are going to get behind in some areas. Altrough it seems that sukhoi and mig are starting to get quite succesfull in builing/creating planes for other countries.

Anyway in what do you think that the western millitaries arent superior in?




posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Ship killing missiles, the sunburn is the perfect exsample.
Best missile in the world ATMO.
Also I would say helicopter armour, no one can really match the armour on thier choppers.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Nukes


Russia has around 39000 nukes compared to USA's 25000 nukes,and the average russian nuke is 1.4 times more powerful than an american one.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   
coordinated fire power! what good is armor and capibilities when you can be struck with presicion from far greater distances. the tech is insurmountable imo



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
...and the average russian nuke is 1.4 times more powerful than an american one.

What the hell is that ment to mean, more powerful?
Do you have any proof for this?



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I think its generally understood that the Russians have bigger and more powerful nukes than the Americans and their western allies. The soviets tended to do everything big. Big giant trains, big giant tanks, big giant nukes, subs, big giant booster rockets and super giant space shuttles, well they were plannign to make a giant space shuttle.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by MancombSeepgood

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
...and the average russian nuke is 1.4 times more powerful than an american one.

What the hell is that ment to mean, more powerful?
Do you have any proof for this?


Russia does use weapons that have a higher yeild. The average US weapon has a yeild of around 300 kt, the average Russian weapon a little over 1 Megaton. This is not a difference in technology - the US could and has made weapons that are just as powerful - rather one of choice.

In the US's opinoin, you never really need anything more than 300-350kt to destroy any military target (with good enough accuracy).

Also, I see a bunch of people quoting stockpile numbers that are way out of date. In the past 10 years the number of operational and stockpiled weapons have decreased dramitcally - both countries also have about the number of weapons.

Text of the Moscow treaty that replaced START II: www.whitehouse.gov...

Some facts about reductions that have already taken place and future reductions:
japan.usembassy.gov...

Current Stockpiles

US- www.nrdc.org...
Russia (est) - www.thebulletin.org...



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Also, think about it, the west spends more money than any other combination of states on the globe on defense and military matters. That in itself doesn't guarantee anything, but it certainly gives the west a gigantic lead on every aspect.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Russia just mainly upgrade outdated nukes to new ones, so if quantitys get little smaller their ability to success in tasks same time growth. In the end its little stupid to say Russian nuclear capabalitys have decreased in any way, more likely it has just been running same as always, while US funds old nukes recycle. Same time Russian other branches of army are left to rot.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Observer83
Russia just mainly upgrade outdated nukes to new ones, so if quantitys get little smaller their ability to success in tasks same time growth. In the end its little stupid to say Russian nuclear capabalitys have decreased in any way, more likely it has just been running same as always, while US funds old nukes recycle. Same time Russian other branches of army are left to rot.


No. Both the US and Russia are signifigantly reducing the number of nuclear weapons, to include getting ride of new, effective weapons. Their capability is in fact decreasing - decreasing from a ridiculous level to a level more in line with threats.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Why couldn't America/the West have military dominance in every conventional way? We outspend everyone else by a great deal. We spend more per man than anyone else.

Western equipment constistantly has beaten out Russian technology when they've been pitted against each other in real combat. Western technology has been picked by nations over the Russian equipment when they've been given both choices.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Disturbed Diliverer how many U.S. air craft were shot down in Gulf War 1 according to YOU??



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Disturbed Diliverer how many U.S. air craft were shot down in Gulf War 1 according to YOU??


I am not DD, but 40 American aircraft were lost (28 Combat, 15 non-combat) with no losses from enemy aircraft

www.defenselink.mil...
www.cnn.com...



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Who gives a damn? A lot more Iraqi aircraft went down, and the Russian SAM's were completely destroyed.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   
THANK YOU HAHAHAHA Disturbed getting MAD cuz you know exactly where this is going, NOW his (Disturbed Diliverer) respons shows very well what I was saying in the past about how Americans like to lie about Russia's tech preformances to make Russia lookm bad, now I stated a while ago that U.S. lost 37 planes in Gulf War 1 but many Americans like Disturbed here were trying to make me look like I was saying more Russian lies, I even put up a site www.rjlee.org... but Disturbed and other's just couldn't fathom the U.S. losses and now you see his answer "WHO CARES!" I assure everyone that the only reason he said that is because STAR WARS1 is an American and he gave internet sites to back up his claim that U.S. lost 40 planes, If Starwars1 here never said anything and it was me who said 37 planes Disturbed here would have tried once again to say it's not true your just mad your Russia equipment was distroyed and EXT... now he (Disturbed) is FORCED to say "WHO CARES!" now anyways let me get to what I was talking about, Yugoslavia's airdefences are much more advanced than Iraq's now if Iraq can bring down 40 (I thought it was 37) U.S. Aircraft than commenscence clearly tells us than Yugo should be more than able to bring down at least 100 of the 1000 aircraft that attacked Serbia in 1999, keep in mind Yugoslavia has said it brought down 388 (146 of which Yugoslavia said were U.S. AIRCRAFT) aircraft, 444 cruise missiles and 60+ UAV's, but according to U.S. only 3 aircraft were lost 1. F-117 2. F-16 3. A UAV now what I am saying and have been for a while is "DO YOU SEE THESE DISCREPANCIES BY THESE DISCREPANCES IT IS EVEDENT THAT ALMOST ALL OFFICIAL FIGURES GIVEN BY U.S. SHOULD BE DISBELEIVED and the noyion that U.S. tech/tactics U.S. victory over korea is a LIE LIE LIE LIE this is not the first time MAJOR discrepancies in U.S. figures were found out.

[edit on 7-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 7-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   
During GF1, Iraq had far heavier air defences than Yugolsavia. As a matter of fact Baghdad was given the title of the most heavily defended city in the world.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
If you do a little Internet reaserch you'll see That title is given to every country the U.S. has bombed scince 1995 so your argument is DEbunked allready!! and every one knows Yugoslavia had in 1991 and especialy 1999 Yugoslavia was and still is WAY more defended than Iraq!

[edit on 7-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Umm no. Yugoslavia was never referred to in this way.

Well let's see, in 1991 Iraq had the worlds 4th biggest land army with an air defense umbrella in proportion. Even now they talk about 8000 SAM's still in Iraq and this was after most of the AD had been destroyed over the last 10 years. So please no more of your uninformed BS, it's starting to get a bit emabarassing



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Do we even MAKE TVs anymore???

I think that's the Japanese domain right now....



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I see a lot of negative posts regarding siberian tigers attitude; agreed he is a bit of the rocker types...but IMHO posts by guys like disturbed believer are just as bad...


Who gives a damn? A lot more Iraqi aircraft went down, and the Russian SAM's were completely destroyed.





Western equipment constistantly has beaten out Russian technology when they've been pitted against each other in real combat. Western technology has been picked by nations over the Russian equipment when they've been given both choices.



hole ridden statements..



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join