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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Air droppable AFVs. I really like the BMD series.




posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
Just as the topic says the west cannot be superior in everything too russia or other countries. That in current times is impossible.

You're right. The thing that the west cannot be superior in is the number of soldiers, the West prefers well-armed armies while the Chinese seem to think the most important thing is the number of soldiers and have an army of 3 milion soldiers.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
You are incorrect...

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is the world’s largest armed force with a total strength of 2.5 million men and women serving in four arms—ground forces, air force, navy, and strategic missile force. The ground forces along total some 2 million troops and support personnel, or 80% of the PLA’s total manpower. This force also deploys 8,000 tanks, 4,000 armoured vehicles, and 25,000 artillery guns and multiple rocket launchers (MRLs). In time of crisis, this force can be reinforced by a large reserve-militia force numbering more than 1.5 million personnel and the one-million-man People's Armed Police (PAP).

Further reductons are planned to reduce overall size to 2.2 million where it should remain in the forseable future.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:34 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...


Where exactly was I wrong, again?



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Yugoslavia had more advanced air defenses, Iraq had alot of anti-air guns, crude stuff compared to Yugoslavia.

The Yugo's had Tunguska's IIRC while Iraq had many ZU-23's mounted on buildings.

And yes, America CAN'T be the best at everything, it wont happen, will never happen, America knows that.

[edit on 7/2/2005 by GrOuNd_ZeRo]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   
And once again, why not? We out spend what, the next 30 nations in military spending?

It's wishful thinking that nations like India, China, and Russia can be on par with us while spending a fraction of what we do.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
And once again, why not? We out spend what, the next 30 nations in military spending?

It's wishful thinking that nations like India, China, and Russia can be on par with us while spending a fraction of what we do.

It's not the quantity but the quality, now tell me the US has a missile on par with the sunburn...



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Just because the U.S. spends more money on there military does not mean any thing. Most of the money they spend could be going into the pockets of certain people. If they actually spend that much money on there military why is it that countrys like Russia can build equal or even more sophisticated technology than the U.S.. Why is it that the British armed forces are better traind than the U.S. and they dont spend as much on there military than the U.S..



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   

It's not the quantity but the quality, now tell me the US has a missile on par with the sunburn...


This statement applies to the Russians more then the Americans. Their entire military doctrine is overwhelming numbers. I think anyone should be able to understand why Russia had so many god damn tanks and planes...

As for the Sunburn, America doesn't have the same need for something like it. We aren't going to be facing large carrier groups. We do, however, have very good anti-missile defenses for our carriers. The SeaRAM is supposed to be able to intercept the Sunburn.

America has more advanced missiles then Russia, though. I haven't heard anything about Russia planning on fielding hypersonic cruise missiles that can go up to mach 7 anytime soon. Have you? It'll only be a few years for America.



Just because the U.S. spends more money on there military does not mean any thing. Most of the money they spend could be going into the pockets of certain people. If they actually spend that much money on there military why is it that countrys like Russia can build equal or even more sophisticated technology than the U.S.. Why is it that the British armed forces are better traind than the U.S. and they dont spend as much on there military than the U.S..


You certainly don't want to get into corruption. If anyone is stealing money, it would be in Russia and China. The two nations have the most corrupt government officials you'll find. Chinese officials can't even keep their grubby hands off the Olympic funds.

And the difference in training between America and the British is marginal at best, if it even exists.

The British could not fight a war with America. How much better could anyone really believe British soldiers are? They'd be outnumbered about 10:1, so they had better be ten times as effective. American troops are also equipped better then British soldiers. Our soldiers have better bases. They get paid more. They get fed better.

EDIT - Russia doesn't have as advanced equipment as America, either. Doesn't anyone ever find it strange that American stuff costs so much more, but on paper looks similiar? Sure, it costs more to make stuff in America, but not by that much.

The Russians have never had the advanced electronics of the West. Their most advanced avionics are at the level of the West's in the 70's.

[edit on 7-2-2005 by Disturbed Deliverer]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX

You're right. The thing that the west cannot be superior in is the number of soldiers, the West prefers well-armed armies while the Chinese seem to think the most important thing is the number of soldiers and have an army of 3 milion soldiers.


Actually it sounds totally reasonable, if US has roughly 600k mercenaries and China has 3 - 2,5 million add that to overall population and its pretty much same % as US and not to forget salarys and other domestic is totally different level on both countrys just to point out amount of $dollars doesnt tell it all. The real thing is that currently China posses no threat other than its neighboring countrys (doesnt allow same thing as when Japan invaded China in WWII), so Russian old weaponry serves em well to keep out same level weaponry using countrys in asian theathre not to forget mere numbers advantage, while they eventually upgrade all the equipment while economy growth continues, so in the end if they ever get even near US current economy by GDP they still got hell a lot of tax payers to support even such massive sounding army as 3 - 2,5million. This is scary stuff indeed if looked as possible conqueror role.

I wouldnt say cap between west and rest does exist same way today, everything is for sale, highest bidder has access to it all.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   
What military weapon is the West not as good as?

Easy...

Suicide bombers!
The Western military is truly behind in this advanced form of munition.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Disturbed you are so un educated we had 4 million active duty troops because we knew that if U.S. ever attacked us U.S. and U.S. had 3 million active duty troops in cold war would come with NATO not just U.S. it's self, our military doctrine that we made easaly available to U.S. military Planners was Disinformation pal, we ain't gonna actually print our actual doctrine for U.S to know, and by the we now according to you Russia doesn't have the tech but to us US.A.'s tech and tactics aerodinamics are nothing but a CRUDE version of ours, remember U.S. thought the same thing about it's tech and then U2 WENT FALLING DOWN hHAHAHA, and on Friday I was watching "The History Channel" it was program that showed U.S. military admitting that Egyptians using Rus radar kept trac of SR-71 and was about to fire but sr took of before I wrote four -five months ago saying the real reason SR-71 was retierd was because Su-27's were tracing it of Finland's coast and Americans knew if SR- strayed or tryed to test our bluff it was gonna have same fate as U2 this why sr-71 was retierd and Aroura was made (even thow U.S. gov doesn't agknowlege Aroura. You see when we say something about what we did for example we Traced SR-71 you imediatly say more lies because your gov has brainwashed Americans to think Rus exagerates inflates shot down victories but I "Siberiantiger" have shown you and ALL in many different was to reexamine U.S claims about Korean war , 2. The fact that both U.S. AND Russia when selling F-15/16's Su-27's MiG 29's they don't sell the same radar avionics that are in U.S. F-15/16's MiG 29's Su-27's I have told you this and plenty of your fellow Americans have agknowledeged this, so I then said put two and two together when U.S. F-15/16/18 were fighting in Gulwar1 they it was U.S. avionics vs. "EXPORT" avionics ( the avionics that are not on Russian MiG 29's) AKA "DOWNGRADED" on Iraqi MiG 29's. So when U.S. says " we defeated MiG's in 1991 that shows our airforce is the best" it is a LIE and U.S Military Planners, Generals know very well there lying. P.S. there were only 4 MiG 29's shot down in gulf war 1.

[edit on 7-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 7-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 02:35 PM
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.


True, but nukes are most effective when they actually launch and hit the target....
Not to mention, we lie like MF's when it comes to how many and how powerful our nukes are. Likewise, nukes in storage, versus ready and primed to fire...how do you think that looks comparing the two? Yep, that's what I thought....



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Siberiantiger, you made a lot of claims as usual. You didn't give many actual facts, proof or logic.

Care to prove your little Egypt-Blackbird story there?



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Dude I realy think your CRAZY MAN, I'm serious too!! ON FRIDAY Feb 4, 2005 at 9:00p.m. "The History Channel" run a program on the SR-71 I'm sure that there's got to be at least two people on ATS that saw the program that's were I the show and on the show U.S. SR-71 expilots said that when in 1973 war with Egypt vs. Jews the U.S. dispatched a sr from England and it over flew parts of Egypt and they them selves said that the Egyptians tracted them on radar and they started to scense that they (Egyptians) were just about to lock and fire on them so they (SR-71 pilot and co-pilot) exelarated out of there towards Palistine.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
I will agree with Siberian Tiger on this...

1. The Migs in Iraq had inferior avionics compared to the Russian versions.
2. The SR-71 was retired because it was first gen stealth that could be tracked by Russian radar systems, when used with other techniques. This is how it was shot down.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I also wrote down in 2004 that I read in an American book that a SR-71 litteraly dis appered from American Radar screans in the 60's and till this day it has never been found, don't know what happened but I'm sure Russia was the Culprite.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
It was a crash. This is a common statement to issue when test craft that aren't supposed to exist yet, crash... The first flight was in '58, and you can bet there was a lot of testing still to go...



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   

as posted by SiberianTiger
P.S. there were only 4 MiG 29's shot down in gulf war 1.


Why is that SiberianTiger?
Please feel free to tell us why there were only "4" shot down when Iraq enormously had more aircraft than just a mere 4 MiGs 29's?




seekerof



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Siberian Tiger has asked for references to show the degradation of the Russian nuclear arsenal....as complaining it was my opinion. It was not my opinion, but I simply voiced the conclusions I've read by the experts as of late. So, I took a few moments, and you asked for it, you got it... The article is a few years old, but things certainly have not gotten better...

www.janes.com...


Russia currently fields 780 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), of which about 60% are beyond their warranty life. Most Russian liquid-fuelled missiles of the fourth and fifth generation have a warranted life of seven to 10 years in operation. At the end of this period they must be removed from their silo and sent back to the plant for remanufacture as the corrosive oxidant can begin to leak, electronics deteriorate, and the warhead has to be serviced. This cannot be done in the silo due to the use of transport-launch containers that envelope the missile.

In the past, missiles have been rebuilt several times, extending their life to 25 years. The problem is that 226 of the missiles - Voevoda (SS-18 'Satan') and Molodets (SS-24 'Scalpel') - were built in Ukraine and so cannot be sent back to their original plant for rebuilding. A limited reserve of missiles can be substituted, but this is a finite resource that will be exhausted. The older UR-100NU (SS-19 'Stiletto'), built at the Khrunichev plant near Moscow, is being rebuilt to extend its useful life until about 2010. The 360 Topol (SS-25 'Sickle') mobile ICBMs that make up almost half the force are the newest missiles to enter service. Their manufacturing plant at Votkinsk is still in operation, and there is a reserve of about 50 missiles that can be substituted for time-expired missiles.


On a brighter note for the Russians, the heirarchy does realize that they need more modernized missiles, and they see the problem, unfortunately, they haven't come up with a way to pay for it yet...

As for the Migs...


Why is that SiberianTiger?
Please feel free to tell us why there were only "4" shot down when Iraq enormously had more aircraft than just a mere 4 MiGs 29's?


To be honest, most were destroyed on the ground. Many that got up didn't engage the Coalition forces, but instead fled to Iran and Syria, hehe... I'd love to see a recognized source state only 4 were shot down though.. Still, as I mentioned, the Iraqi Migs were not the equivalent of their Russian counterparts, just as we don't sell others identical fighters either...


[edit on 7-2-2005 by Gazrok]

[edit on 7-2-2005 by Gazrok]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join