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.

 

Is Russia preparing for nuclear war?

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
You tell me to check my facts but you use "thebulletin.org" as a source.

Try using at least "FAS.org" as a source; or some strategic policy journal which is peer-reviewed...or any numerous strategic weapons publications which tell you you are wrong.

Now take your trash information elsewhere.


Oh ye of limited mental capacity
The Bulletin is a well respected journal, in the industry. Many ' strategic weapons ' publications get their data from the Bulletin. Show me one of these publications of yours, seeing as you hvae just mouthed off and provided absolutely no fact.

BTW. The www.fas.org website lists the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as one of it's major sources for information on nuclear weapons, DUH.


www.fas.org...


The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 by scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project at the University of Chicago and were deeply concerned about the potential future use of nuclear weapons and nuclear war.

The founding mission of the Bulletin remains relevant today. For more than half a century, the Bulletin has existed to maintain worldwide awareness of the dangers posed by nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. In 1999 and 2000, 60 Minutes called it "the leading nuclear journal in the United States."

To convey the particular peril posed by nuclear weapons, the Bulletin devised the Doomsday Clock in 1947. The hands of the clock first moved in response to changing world events in 1949, following the first Soviet nuclear test. The clock is now recognized as a universal symbol of the nuclear age.

The founding mission of the Bulletin remains relevant today. For more than half a century, the Bulletin has existed to maintain worldwide awareness of the dangers posed by nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. In 1999 and 2000, 60 Minutes called it "the leading nuclear journal in the United States."

To convey the particular peril posed by nuclear weapons, the Bulletin devised the Doomsday Clock in 1947. The hands of the clock first moved in response to changing world events in 1949, following the first Soviet nuclear test. The clock is now recognized as a universal symbol of the nuclear age.

www.thebulletin.org...


Do you enjoy making yourself look stupid ? You seem to be getting better and better at it
I suggest yuo think very carefully about your next post in this thread, nbefore you lose all credibility






[edit on 9-3-2006 by rogue1]


The Bulletin is a magazine: The Magazine of global security news and analysis.

You can't argue with me that I am right; the Bulletin is not a published and peer reviewed Journal on policy; thus the information is gathered like you would gather cloth for a quilt.

It is patch-work.

It is inaccurate because I know their statistics on Russia and the US are wrong.

The US does not deploy any MIRVs.

The FAS is a compilation of various journals.

The Bulletin has various journals but is an opinion piece edited to make a magazine worth buying.

If you want good information there is a Journal you can subscribe to but it costs you 900 dollars a year.

I would refer you to a book:

Stratigecheskoye Yadernoe Vooruzhenye Rossii

but, I have not been able to find an English print of the book yet.




posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by JamesinOz


Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both completely rebuilt and thriving cities within a decade of being destroyed.


That true but those were some small scale nukes 12-21KT most nukes your going to hit cities with today are in the hundereds of KT to the MT range today. It was also a rather limited nuclear war 2 compared to hundreds of japanese cities being nuked would make a huge difference.

If the US had hundreds of 100-300kt nukes to drop at that time and the US used that many there wouldnt have been anyone left in Japan to completely rebuild anything in decades.


A 100-300 kt bomb might destroy a few city blocks and blow over a few buildings. So why would hundreds have destroyed Japan?

The pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when bombed were misleading because these cities were very dense and not large across anyway. They had few buildings taller than a few stories and so the quality of the pictures in the distance couldn't portray that there was still a city around.

Remember, the pictures were taken with the psychological effect in mind; that the world might see "we the US can destroy everything" and thus are misleading.

The reality is only 40% of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed.

Maybe you'd destroy 60% or 70% with a 300kt Nuke.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus


A 100-300 kt bomb might destroy a few city blocks and blow over a few buildings. So why would hundreds have destroyed Japan?



You dont think hundreds of 100-300KT nukes would have destroyed Japan
Your vastly underestimating the power of a 300KT blast

Too tiny Atmoic bombs killed 100,000 and 200,000

300kT detonation would create a mass fire with a radius of 3.5 miles







0.7 miles from ground zero, light from the fireball would melt asphalt in the streets, burn paint off walls, and melt metal surfaces within a half second of detonation

About one second later, the blast wave and 750 miles per hour (mph) winds would arrive and toss burning and disintegrating vehicles into the air like leaves in a wind.

1.3 miles from ground zero would experience more than 15 times the thermal energy found at the edge of the mass fire which destroyed Hiroshima. The fireball here would, for a moment, shine 5,000 times brighter than a desert sun at noon.

Within 3 miles of ground zero the clothing worn by people in direct line of sight of the fireball would burst into flames or melt, and areas of skin not covered by clothing would be scorched, charring flesh and causing third-degree burns

The fire would then burn everywhere at this intensity for three to six hours, producing a lethal environment over a total area of approximately 40 to 65 square miles - an area about 10 to 15 times larger than that incinerated by the 15 kT atomic bomb which destroyed Hiroshima.



This is not even getting into the fallout


effects of a 300kt blast



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus


A 100-300 kt bomb might destroy a few city blocks and blow over a few buildings. So why would hundreds have destroyed Japan?



You dont think hundreds of 100-300KT nukes would have destroyed Japan
Your vastly underestimating the power of a 300KT blast

Too tiny Atmoic bombs killed 100,000 and 200,000

300kT detonation would create a mass fire with a radius of 3.5 miles







0.7 miles from ground zero, light from the fireball would melt asphalt in the streets, burn paint off walls, and melt metal surfaces within a half second of detonation

About one second later, the blast wave and 750 miles per hour (mph) winds would arrive and toss burning and disintegrating vehicles into the air like leaves in a wind.

1.3 miles from ground zero would experience more than 15 times the thermal energy found at the edge of the mass fire which destroyed Hiroshima. The fireball here would, for a moment, shine 5,000 times brighter than a desert sun at noon.

Within 3 miles of ground zero the clothing worn by people in direct line of sight of the fireball would burst into flames or melt, and areas of skin not covered by clothing would be scorched, charring flesh and causing third-degree burns

The fire would then burn everywhere at this intensity for three to six hours, producing a lethal environment over a total area of approximately 40 to 65 square miles - an area about 10 to 15 times larger than that incinerated by the 15 kT atomic bomb which destroyed Hiroshima.



This is not even getting into the fallout


effects of a 300kt blast


Fall-out only exists in a ground blast; you don't use a ground blast against a city because it's useless.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed only 140,000 (much less than the fire bombings for 4 years).

It destroyed only 40% of the cities.

Because the damage vs. yield is not linear a 300kt is not "10 times as powerful as a 30 kt" in terms of damage.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Thats bunk

Ground burst detonations release 10 - 100 times more fallout than airburst true, But airburst do indeed cause fallout

Hiroshima was a friggin airburst dont even try to tell me no one died from radiation there


I just showed you the effects of a 300KT blast. Hundreds of those over the tightly packed tinder box that was WW2 Japan

There wouldnt have been much left


BTW the US indeed still uses MIRVs what the heck do you think are on Trident missiles


www.atomicarchive.com...

[edit on 9-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 9-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
You can't argue with me that I am right; the Bulletin is not a published and peer reviewed Journal on policy; thus the information is gathered like you would gather cloth for a quilt.

It is patch-work.

It is inaccurate because I know their statistics on Russia and the US are wrong.


Umm yeah right, of course you do
You would know this how ? From a dubious website.


The US does not deploy any MIRVs.


Erm, yes they do, the Trident m,issiles are MIRVed and some Minutemans carry 2 warheads. They even test fired a minuteman with duek warhreads last year. The Trident D-5 is MIRV armed as well



The FAS is a compilation of various journals.

The Bulletin has various journals but is an opinion piece edited to make a magazine worth buying.


What bunk. So fas according to you, uses the bulletin nuclear noebook as a source but is completely wrong
Come on, you are full of it. FAS is out of date anyway, they still talk about the START II treaty which of course is defunct
Yah good source.


If you want good information there is a Journal you can subscribe to but it costs you 900 dollars a year.

I would refer you to a book:

Stratigecheskoye Yadernoe Vooruzhenye Rossii

but, I have not been able to find an English print of the book yet.


Yada, seen teh website eyars ago. There is nothing to suggest that that is the be all and end all of sources, lol. Please, it also mentions nothing of US forces.

So it seems you are the one who is behind in information, especailly if you continue to read the out of date fas site, like it was gospel.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
In my opinion, weve all been preparing for nuclear war for so long we dont think about it anymore. But oh well, I still get to watch the World Baseball Classic.



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Rogue the US itself declares that it does not have multiple warheads on missiles.

It's not like some big secret; your sources don't match the US's declared sources; so what are they doing...top secret spy work? Yeah right.

[edit on 10/3/06 by JAK]



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Honestly are you just making this stuff up as you go? To make such claims you woud have to pretend you had a clue of stuff you clearly dont know like the routes of US nuclear subs


Nope i happen to have a good idea of what happens based on operational procedures i have seen. What is your exact problem with my claims?


This things are out there for 6 month plus at a time. You dont think the ones out spend the majority of that time in striking range of their targets?


Their actually at sea for about 2 1/2 months at a time.


The Blue/Gold Crewing Concept for Trident Submarines. The Navy's current model for using more than one crew to operate a ship is the blue
crew/gold crew concept used with Trident submarines.(10) Under that operational concept, two crews (named blue and gold) are assigned to each

Trident sub. The blue crew takes the submarine on a 74-day patrol, after which it brings the sub back to port and both crews conduct 38 days
of maintenance.(11) The gold crew then takes the submarine on another 74-day patrol and returns home, at which point both crews again carry
out 38 days of maintenance.

That cycle repeats throughout the 42-year service life of a Trident submarine, broken only for longer periods of maintenance. For example,
after 14 years, the sub requires an extended refit period in which it goes into dry dock for four months. At about the 21-year mark, the
submarine returns to dry dock for two years, during which its reactor core is replaced (refueling the submarine) and additional long-term
maintenance is performed. Another extended overhaul period occurs at around the 33-year mark.

With that cycle, the operating tempo of a Trident submarine (the amount of time, on average, that it spends under way in a year) is 65
percent, whereas the personnel tempo (the amount of time, on average, that a sailor spends at sea in a year) is only about 40 percent.

Consequently, a Trident submarine is at sea for the majority of its service life.

www.cbo.gov...


We all make mistakes and there really is NO reason to insult me when your not going to check EACH and every fact you assume. Your at least accurate when you claim they spend the vast majority of their time at sea within striking range of likely targets ( China/Nortk Korea/Russia).


What only subs in the Pacific can hit Russia now?


We were talking about China last i remember as i know that with the range of American SLBM's today at least most of Eastern Russia will be in striking distance


Your already backing away from your statement of


I always reserve to right to correct myself when i find my prior statements to be in error.

I think my estimates might very well have been abit conservative. I imagined less American SSBN's in the Pacfic. Since there is currently 7 ( I still remember a time when there were only 4 or 5 not so long ago; check it up). Now one of these will probably in long term or medium term refurbishment and another 2 will be in port busy with their off time. That leaves 1 or two en route ( but likely within range of urban eastern China) and two on station that can reach any and all targets. So depending on schedule, and no major mishaps, there will be 2-4 submarines that can hit eastern China imo. My first estimate was thus not inaccurate for all instances but there really is too many variable's for me to try say with certain that there will be 2-3 instead of possible as many as 4 or 5. I still think that if i go look at the records carefully these high op-tempo's will probably turn out to be inaccurate in peacetime but given circumstances they might get and keep them all at sea for emergencies ( high tension, war)


BTW by China did you mean Russia?


I tend to mean what i say even if it's sometimes wrong.



I would love to see more information of this "Well known situation " you talked about can you link too it.


Which one exactly?


14 Trident submarines and only 2 can hit Russia at any given time
Let me guess you believe the US dosent use any MIRVs either

classic stuff


Did not make either of those claims but i guess it's the lies you have to make up to insult me. If only the facts were on your side more often you would have some alternatives to base insult i guess. Hard times surely.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Oh yeah
and what high yield warheads are these - once again mor baseless assumptions.


The Russians are well known to have deployed their Sa-5's with 20 odd KT warheads Rogue. We are trusting them not to lie to us ( and they always do on arms control matters) when we take their word for the fact that they do not do that anymore. Imo it is not called for but knowing their love of redundancy they will employ them just to mess up strategic warhead allocation.


Erm, what facts haven't I checked ? I don't expect you to agree to anything I say, you live in fantasy land, I live reality.
In fact all you seem to do is insult people when they don't agree with you.


Your always to the one to reach for the insults when your ideas do not related to well known facts. Whatever my bias people are free to check my posting habits and see if my bias distracts me from the topic like it does you.


You provide limityed sources for your assumptions, that's of course if you proved any sources at all. Moat of your claims are vague inuendo.


I provide on average ten sources for each of yours from as many different sites. My claims can all be sourced and when i do yours are almost always shown for the speculation and propaganda it is. Do me a HUGE favour and start sourcing your claims properly( I gave up when i realised you don't care for sources who disagree with your point of view) so we can have the type of discussion that i like best.


BTW. What does mobile land based missiles have to do with anything ? Why do you always cover your ineptituted with the smoke screen of changing subjects


Mobile ICBM's can not be found very easily or at all. If you do not understand why SLBM's are so important i guess you will not comprehend why land based mobile ICBM's are ten times more so. Your the one who always brings a case of smoke grenades so please stop accusing me of stealing yours.


Gee, another brilliant commment
The Trident could hit China from their ports on the Pacific coast - where would these out of range boats be in the Pacific - in Antartica
LMAO.


The Trident ( now that they completed upgrading them all in the last few years) can hit eastern seaboard of China, yes. Would the boats in long and short term refit be ready to fire before Chinese missiles arive?


Sure go and look, I doubt you'll post back saying I'm right. You hvae a nasty habit of disregarding information which doesn't suit your view.


There are only 7 boats in the pacific and as i stated my 2/3 was probably not a GOOD GUESS ( anwhere between 3-5)but at least i know when to guess and when not unlike you who peddle lies for truth out of weakness.


You try and negate fact with insult, that onloy workds for the stupid.


Those are your tactics and i find admitting my sometimes ignorant remarks to be no problem for myself. I guess if you are so weak that you can never admit your mistakes you must lie and deceive even if your comments are nowhere near accurate. Why do you think yourself above admitting to your abundance of mistakes?

Stellar



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Found an interesting article on U.S. plans for nuclear war....



More than a decade after the end of the Cold War, both the United States and Russia maintain vast nuclear arsenals. The United States still has 550 ICBMs -- long-range missiles that can reach Moscow in a half an hour -- stored in silos throughout the West. A single U.S. nuclear submarine carries up to 192 warheads and could kill or maim about a third of Russia's population, some 50 million people. The United States has 18 of these submarines. All told, the explosive power of America's nuclear warheads is 100,000 times greater than the single Hiroshima bomb. And our nuclear war plan keeps many of these weapons on hair-trigger alert.

Since the Eisenhower administration, the SIOP war plan has dictated how U.S. nuclear forces would be used in a war. With broad guidance from the president, the secretary of defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the staff of the U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) works out the inscrutably complex details of the plan. It is STRATCOM that designs and maintains the list of targets for nuclear attacks.

The targets war planners identify include Russian nuclear bases and other military targets, urban industrial targets, and leadership headquarters. Using sophisticated computer programs, planners calculate how hard each target will be to destroy and how many nuclear weapons should be assigned to it. They take a large number of variables into account -- the explosive power of different weapons, how resistant the target is to attack, the impact point, the proximity of civilians to the target, the choreography of many different types of weapons arriving at different times, and fallout patterns, among others. In Eisenhower's day the plan described simple one-blow massive attacks -- with projected fatalities approaching half a billion -- but over the years the plan has evolved into a more complex array of "attack options," including many smaller plans based on the controversial notion that it may be possible to fight a limited nuclear war.

www.nrdc.org...



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmmm, The Minuteman force has 800 warheads deployed on 500 missiles. The Trident missile on submarines are allowed ot carry 8, but carry 6 atm. Of course that can be easily changed.


My sources suggested 1000 but we can go with 800 if you like. The Trident warheads can not easily be changed as there are not all that many in reserve you see.


As of January 2006, the U.S. stockpile contains almost 10,000 nuclear warheads. This includes 5,735 active or operational warheads: 5,235 strategic and 500 nonstrategic warheads.
www.thebulletin.org...


And of these 5000 almost 2000 are air breathing meaning they will have to survive the Russian air force and the missiles the Russian air defenses. You know as well as i do that those missiles are going to have to have a heck of a time getting to their targets if they even manage to leave the bombers in any great numbers.


We estimate that as of early 2006, Russia has approximately 5,830 operational nuclear warheads in its active arsenal. This includes about 3,500 strategic warheads, a decrease of some 300 from last year's level due to the withdrawal of approximately 36 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from operational service. Our estimate of operational nonstrategic nuclear weapons is 2,330 warheads, more than a thousand warheads fewer than our previous estimate (see "Russian Nuclear Forces, 2005," March/April 2005 Bulletin) due to a recount of operational launch platforms and Russian statements about reductions.
www.thebulletin.org...


Neither Russia nor the USSR has ever honoured a weapon reduction treaty in any way that hurts them more than it does the US. We really have very little idea how many nuclear warheads they have and trusting them is no good idea. While that is all true even their STATED number of weapons and launchers is superior to the US in that most of their launchers are MOBILE and can be reloaded for as long as they want to continue blowing up American targets. They have ( admitted ) two to three times as many warheads on their launchers as the US does and untill you realise what that means there is not much i can say.


Hmmm, I suggest you check your facts before making obviously incorrect blanket statements.


I always do and i rather infrequently mess up the process badly enough to make oncorrect blanket statements. Feel free to dig up some for the benefit of your fans.


Your point being what ? There are hundred of silos in the US as well and as I've shown the US has far more straegic warheads deployed than Russia has


No the US just ADMITS to a few more OVERALL strategic warheads of which the air breathing part is exceedingly unlikely to make much impression if any at all. How can you look at the facts before you and not understand the fact that Russian mobile missiles would be firing their third of fourth missiles by the time the surviving American bombers start launching? How many bombers will be left to deliver those warheads anyways?


BTW. It doesn't take 2 warheads to destroy one silo. They use 2 warheads fron different missiles as a form of redudndancy to endure that at least one warhead will make it to its target. It isn't because they need 2 warheads to hit the silo.


I can't argue with the facts.


Complete load of BS, talk about living in a dream


Not at all.

Major-General George Keenan:

He spoke of the astonishing civil defense measures which have been developed, and continue to be developed, in the Soviet Union. He stated
that 25% of all Russian factory workers are in training programs preparing them for civil defense leadership roles. Major defense
manufacturing facilities in Russia have been dispersed well clear of all existing major industrial areas so as to afford a large measure of
protection for those industries in the event of nuclear war. Keegan alleged that he was in possession of ample evidence to show that the
Russians are in the process of building up huge stocks of foods and grains, in preparation for war. He said that all the evidence points to
the fact that the Russians are not merely aiming for superiority but are "preparing for war. . . ." Evidence available quite openly in

Russia, contained in Soviet literature, shows that already the Soviets have constructed enough mass-shelters in key strategic industrial
areas to protect More than sixty million from nuclear attack. Bunkers have been provided for the civilian population in all main cities,
including several which are the size of football fields. "My collection team." said the Major-General. "have identified grain-storage bunkers
the size of several football fields on the perimeter of all main cities, guarded by the military -- the most elaborate of their kind in the
world. We are observing the most extensive peace-time war preparations in recorded history. . .

And more about the man www.af.mil...


The vast Soviet network of shelters and command facilities, under construction for four decades, was recently described in detail by
Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci.The shelters are designed to house the entire Politburo, the Central Committee, and the key leadership of
the Ministryof Defense and the KGB. Some are located hundreds of yards beneath the surface, and are connected by secret subway lines,tunnels,
and sophisticated communications systems. "These facilities contradict in steel and concrete Soviet protestations that they share President

Reagan's view that nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought,"Carlucci said (Ariwna Republic, April 3, 1988). These
facilities reveal that they are preparing themselves for just the opposite." The shelters are also protected against chemical warfare agents,
and stocked with sufficient supplies to allow the leadership to survive and wage war for months.In contrast, the limited US shelter system
begun in the 1950s has mostly been abandoned."To have something comparable, we'd have to have facilities where we could put every governor,
mayor, every Cabinet official, and our whole command structure underground with subways running here and there," Carlucci said. "There's just
no comparison between the two."

www.oism.org...


More when i feel less lazy.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
And of these 5000 almost 2000 are air breathing meaning they will have to survive the Russian air force and the missiles the Russian air defenses. You know as well as i do that those missiles are going to have to have a heck of a time getting to their targets if they even manage to leave the bombers in any great numbers.


Stellar


Survive the Russian Airforce
the Russian airforce is in as about as good of shape as the Russian Navy. Both pale shadows of their former glory.

Any US non ICBM or SLBM nuclear weapon will be about 100 times more effective then Russia ones will.

Stellar I dont know if anyone told you but the USSR fell and lost the Coldwar. Russia now has a GDP that ranks behind that of Brazil while the US is still firmly on top. Russia cant even control the Red Mafia which controls so much of Russia now its not even funny. They have become without a doubt the most powerful criminal org. in the world.

Russia couldnt even afford to outfit its army with the superb AN-94 rifle which was created to replace the AK-74 and its alot better then that. It only been given to SF teams. They cant even sell it because the flooded the market with AK-47s.

The US now spends almost more on its Black Budget alone (thats the the stuff the public isnt told about) then Russia does on its whole military. You aint going to find half of what the US has on any website they quietly spend 20-40 billion each year on stuff the public even congress never knows about.

So if you think you know everything about US military capabilities your dead wrong.

But keep on with your fanasty about Russia winning some nuclear war with super weapons it most amusing.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
Rogue the US itself declares that it does not have multiple warheads on missiles.

It's not like some big secret; your sources don't match the US's declared sources; so what are they doing...top secret spy work? Yeah right.


you have yet to produce anything to prove what you're saying is fact, which probably means it isn't


Where are these US declarations ?

Please don't waste my time again unless you have the documents to back you up.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
The Russians are well known to have deployed their Sa-5's with 20 odd KT warheads Rogue. We are trusting them not to lie to us ( and they always do on arms control matters) when we take their word for the fact that they do not do that anymore.


You mean based on your over inflated DIA reports.



Your always to the one to reach for the insults when your ideas do not related to well known facts. Whatever my bias people are free to check my posting habits and see if my bias distracts me from the topic like it does you.


LOL, we'll let people decide by reading the posts in this thread and others. I think we know what's what don't we




I provide on average ten sources for each of yours from as many different sites. My claims can all be sourced and when i do yours are almost always shown for the speculation and propaganda it is.


LOL, that's rich - well you seem to think exaggeration is a virtue. Almost all your sources are either wrong, speculation or over inflated
This has already been proved many times. No more needed to be said.



Do me a HUGE favour and start sourcing your claims properly( I gave up when i realised you don't care for sources who disagree with your point of view) so we can have the type of discussion that i like best.


Yada, yada. not only do I post sources - I've used yours before to prove your statements wrong, lol. So pluhease.
Your type of discussion is to take peple posts apart point by point then get on teh good ole google for a couple of hours until you come across sites which agree with your view - That's very easy to do. What you don't do is check your facts.

Lets see, for example Russia. You make certain calims about Russian nuclear weapons etc, when alternate sources are posted prioving you wrong, your automatic response is well what would they know, no one knows what's hapening in Russia, LOL, of course you and your sources do




BTW. What does mobile land based missiles have to do with anything ? Why do you always cover your ineptituted with the smoke screen of changing subjects


Mobile ICBM's can not be found very easily or at all. If you do not understand why SLBM's are so important i guess you will not comprehend why land based mobile ICBM's are ten times more so. Your the one who always brings a case of smoke grenades so please stop accusing me of stealing yours.


Erm we were talking about MARV warheads on SLBM's, hence what the hell are you changing subjects and ranting about ICBM's
As I said, smoke screen man.



The Trident ( now that they completed upgrading them all in the last few years) can hit eastern seaboard of China, yes. Would the boats in long and short term refit be ready to fire before Chinese missiles arive?


The Trident II could always hit China from it's first production model, no upgrades were needed.



I guess if you are so weak that you can never admit your mistakes you must lie and deceive even if your comments are nowhere near accurate. Why do you think yourself above admitting to your abundance of mistakes?


Stellar, when dealing with your posts, I am never wrong - we both know that.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by James Daniel
I find this particular very interesting.

Have you read "New Lies for Old" or "The Perestoika Deception" by Anatoly Golitsyn (ex-Soviet KGB)? He describes a long range Soviet/KGB deception aimed at disarming the West and leading to a nuclear strike on the US - you can read up more information here

You may want to visit The Final Phase Forum where they discuss this exact topic. Bear in mind that the majority of their members are very conservative and religious - other than that, there is some good information and some well done research backing up their theories.

Another person you may find of interest is Jeff Nyquist who has his own website and research dedicated to Anatoly Golitsyn and Soviet deception. The forum above is also dedicated and regularly discuss Jeff Nyquist research. I believe he is also a highly recognised and reputable financial commentor/researcher.

And finally, also relating to the above, is Joel Skousen, who has a page dedicated to the threats posed by Russia, China and the NWO at his website here. Again, quite conservative and religious, but good research and backing of his ideas and opinions.

It's certainly interesting reading and something that is highly probable. I'm sure many of you here are well aware that President Putin is an ex-KGB agent.

Anyway, a perfect topic for the perfect forum, IMO


I look forward to hearing some of the ATS members thoughts on this.

Are we both talking about the same Anatoly Golitsyn?; the Anatoly Golitsyn (probably a Soviet disinformation agent) who defected to the West and claimed that Hugh Gaitskell had been murdered in January 1963 to allow Harold Wilson, a KGB agent, to become leader of the Labour Party?



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Survive the Russian Airforce
the Russian airforce is in as about as good of shape as the Russian Navy. Both pale shadows of their former glory.


Well how many planes do you think they need to stop bombers from behind their SAM screen? They have hundreds operational but i guess their of such low quality in your mind that no ammount will make a difference.


Any US non ICBM or SLBM nuclear weapon will be about 100 times more effective then Russia ones will.


The type of irrational comment i should have been expecting all this time. Please provide the evidence and links that drives you to making such a claim.


Stellar I dont know if anyone told you but the USSR fell and lost the Coldwar.


Yeah i heard the rumour but then i noticed they still have more nuclear weapons and delivery systems than the US with a operational ABM defense system with at least 8500 launchers aswell. I then proceeded to start wondering if they really did "lose" as losing normally entails you becoming weaker compared to your enemies and not stronger. Can you explain it?


Russia now has a GDP that ranks behind that of Brazil while the US is still firmly on top.


And if you think GDP matters you need to go back to your books and try discover that money is not 'real' and that a government like the USSR can in fact build anything it likes just paying salaries and providing resources and equipment. The whole lunatic concept that Russias military economy is anything like the US one is based in shear ignorance of reality.


Russia cant even control the Red Mafia which controls so much of Russia now its not even funny. They have become without a doubt the most powerful criminal org. in the world.


Unless that criminal organization is in fact nothing other than state intelligence agents taking over the private sector once again? Do you REALLY think that in a country like Russia ( or any other) the "mafia' can exsist unless allowed to do so?


Russia couldnt even afford to outfit its army with the superb AN-94 rifle which was created to replace the AK-74 and its alot better then that. It only been given to SF teams. They cant even sell it because the flooded the market with AK-47s.


Yes you need a better rifle than the Ak-47 when the war will be fought with nuclear weapons and worse. It's a CRITICAL matter than one.


The US now spends almost more on its Black Budget alone (thats the the stuff the public isnt told about) then Russia does on its whole military.


What the Russians spend on their arms and research has always just been estimates and considering their two independent economies it really could be anything. If they wanted to build underground cities ( as they apparently are) they could afford it and if they wanted to fill them with thousands of nuclear warheads or tanks/planes whatever they could also do that. It's a question of resources people and man hours and "money" hardly comes into it.



You aint going to find half of what the US has on any website they quietly spend 20-40 billion each year on stuff the public even congress never knows about.


I know all about this and if this can be managed in such a relatively open society imagine what could be done in a quasi cashless one like the USSR?


So if you think you know everything about US military capabilities your dead wrong.


Well we all have gaps in our knowledge but it seems you have holes and gaps with the rest consisting of opinions based on speculation. Your apparent need for a strong well armed America, when all evidence indicates that even a poor apparent third world USSR can operate more strategic offensive and defensive weapons than the US, is not doing much for your image either.I am not a fan of Russia and is just doing my best to alert people to the fact that the threat is not gone and that people in the US will be the first to die en mass when Russia has sufficiently disarmed America by all the agreements they so love cheating on.


But keep on with your fanasty about Russia winning some nuclear war with super weapons it most amusing.


It's no fantasy and they will not need anything other than what they have declared so far. The other weapons Rogue are so enfatuated by will just be icing on the Russian cake.

Stellar

[edit on 11-3-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I don't see how a bomb 10x as big does 10x the damage either. That's like saying that a car 10x bigger than annother is 10x as fast. Not logical.



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
You mean based on your over inflated DIA reports.


I showed that your theories about inflated DIA reports were based on speculation at the time with post war evidence showing that the DIA were essentially correct and the CIA were wrong. Your claims about the DIA were never specific and your basically alluding to the fact that all US intelligence agencies got it wrong when they were on average underestimating Soviet power.


LOL, we'll let people decide by reading the posts in this thread and others. I think we know what's what don't we


I'm happy with that arrangement. I think your objections to my information and facts ( since you can not introduce some of your own ) are worthless and just meant to distract people.


LOL, that's rich - well you seem to think exaggeration is a virtue.


I am not much experienced at exaggeration but spending time in your presence is certainly helping me to understand how much trouble pure bluster can cause in the hands of a master like yourself. It's a education.


Almost all your sources are either wrong, speculation or over inflated
This has already been proved many times. No more needed to be said.


Have a ball covering the few dozen i have used in the threads relatin to this topic. You have so far not even managed a dent in my general credibility. You have not proved anything and it would be probably be funny to see you give me just one instance where you proved one of my sources incorrect. Do your best now!



Yada, yada. not only do I post sources - I've used yours before to prove your statements wrong, lol. So pluhease.


Your sources ammount to nothing other than speculation and vapid propaganda attacks by study groups and worse. I use official government and intelligence sources that you happen to dislike due to your rather large bias.


Your type of discussion is to take peple posts apart point by point then get on teh good ole google for a couple of hours until you come across sites which agree with your view - That's very easy to do


Well your posts ( and the posts i disagree with ) are normally post that can be ripped apart in sequence so why blame me for others ignorance and bias? You try and source your claims properly with a coherent picture in mind and then see how "easy" it is to find information you like. Your claim so far is basically that everyone who disagrees with you are lying including the entire US defense establishment for the last 25 years. You are not only largely ignorant to make such a claim but must be quite insane to think anyone will buy such a nonsense claim.

Try explain why the US defense and intelligence establishment have been ,and still are according to you, wrong for 25 years on most topics.


What you don't do is check your facts.


Your facts hardly ever are and your hit rate is probably close to pure chance. If you expect me to respect you for using a coin to decide what is fact and what is fiction you are clearly missing a few pieces of the puzzle.


Lets see, for example Russia. You make certain calims about Russian nuclear weapons etc, when alternate sources are posted prioving you wrong
,

The sources cleary states Russia has a far larger land based ICBM force with at least twice as many warheads read to launch that American declares. When taking into account SLBM warheads America and Russia has parity in strategic weapons ( Not counting bomber launched cruise missiles and gravity bombs) and this leads me to stating Russia is far better prepared considering half their land based launchers can be reloaded in mere minutes while also being able to shift position at will. If you can not comprehend why i then believe Russia is better prepared for a extended nuclear exchange your just not very astute when it comes to handling facts.


your automatic response is well what would they know, no one knows what's hapening in Russia, LOL, of course you and your sources do


Well we know that the weapons declared by Russis is allready enough to put them well ahead in a nuclear exchange and my claims was basically that we have no idea if they do not actually have far more missiles and or warheads. Do you understand that these are two seperate issues and that i am not appealing to some secret source for my basic claim that they are better prepared?


Erm we were talking about MARV warheads on SLBM's, hence what the hell are you changing subjects and ranting about ICBM's
As I said, smoke screen man.


I am not changing subject but well done with yet another effort to derail the conversation. At least i can see your now running out of steam. I suggested that SLBM, while very deadly, can not be easily reloaded at sea while land based mobile missiles can be. This makes any strike by submarines a one shot affair as there will not be ports to go back to for reloads. Do you understand this simple reality or do i need to go into more detail ?


The Trident II could always hit China from it's first production model, no upgrades were needed.


And i guess the Trident I ( which i were talking about) was never operational and were not phased out completely as late as a few years ago. The Trident one had a range of 7500 KM and would have thus required a 4-5 day cruise ,at max speed out of harbour, to get into firing position for targets on eastern seaboard of China.


Stellar, when dealing with your posts, I am never wrong - we both know that.


Your rarely right and when you are i reckon it might largely be due to shear luck considering the ammount of claims that just have no basis in reality. You should stop trying so hard to insult me as it does absolutely nothing to discourage me. The meaner you get the more i will type to defend myself against your baseless claims and speculation.

You are however free to keep on shooting the blanks but i really do not see much point to it.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 11 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   


And if you think GDP matters you need to go back to your books and try discover that money is not 'real' and that a government like the USSR can in fact build anything it likes just paying salaries and providing resources and equipment. The whole lunatic concept that Russias military economy is anything like the US one is based in shear ignorance of reality.


Your better believe GDP and money matters. If it didnt Russia wouldnt try so hard to sell its military equipment or anything around the world. That would only be Russian resources leaving the country and they are only getting fake money in return. They wanted so bad to sell the AN-94 to other countries and found no takers.





Yeah i heard the rumour but then i noticed they still have more nuclear weapons and delivery systems than the US with a operational ABM defense system with at least 8500 launchers aswell. I then proceeded to start wondering if they really did "lose" as losing normally entails you becoming weaker compared to your enemies and not stronger. Can you explain it?



can I explain why Russia has had drastic years of decline in its nuclear stockpile from the Soviet era one it had? Thats the real question

If they are planning for some secret nuclear strike you would think they would want more nuclear weapons.

The main reason Russia puts so much effort into its shrunken nuclear forces is because its the only thing that underscore its status as a powerful nation. Their convential army power projection is in the crapper.

Where is the evidence for this ABM defense system? Is this the same system you claimed can shot done 90% of ALCM, Where is the real evidence for any such system





Unless that criminal organization is in fact nothing other than state intelligence agents taking over the private sector once again? Do you REALLY think that in a country like Russia ( or any other) the "mafia' can exsist unless allowed to do so?


Now this is bordering on pure speculation too raw fantasy. The Red Mafia is about one thing making money for the people in it and they aint giving it to a goverment that keep them down for decades. Only with the fall of the USSR have they become super powerful. The Soviets would not tolerate a power stronger then them and they kept the mafia in check.

They used the chaos of the fall to there advantage.




Yes you need a better rifle than the Ak-47 when the war will be fought with nuclear weapons and worse. It's a CRITICAL matter than one.


If Russia has any plans after this Nuclear war that include anything more then hiding in their bunkers they better have a large well equiped army.

Because both Russia and the US would both be in ruin and other up and comming super powers with way more people will be intact and in perfect position to expand on a weakened Russia or the US.




What the Russians spend on their arms and research has always just been estimates and considering their two independent economies it really could be anything. If they wanted to build underground cities ( as they apparently are) they could afford it and if they wanted to fill them with thousands of nuclear warheads or tanks/planes whatever they could also do that. It's a question of resources people and man hours and "money" hardly comes into it.


I can say the same thing about the US military but theirs only so much you can hide.

Undergorund cities with thousands of nuclear warheads or tanks/planes are pure fantasy until you can prove otherwise.




I know all about this and if this can be managed in such a relatively open society imagine what could be done in a quasi cashless one like the USSR?

When it comes to military secrets the US is just as secret as Russia if not more.




Your apparent need for a strong well armed America, when all evidence indicates that even a poor apparent third world USSR can operate more strategic offensive and defensive weapons than the US, is not doing much for your image either


I have no need because Russia should still be feared with just its stated nuclear arsenal. Without any secret weapons or bases thousands of nuclear missiles should be feared. These are ICBMs in number the US has no known means to stop.

Russia dose not need any secrets weapons or defense because what they have known is enough to lay waste to any country.


But answer me this Stellar why would Russia want to do this. Lets say they wipe out 90% of the US in a nuclear first strike and in turn take 50% losses in Russia. Some people might consider that a win in a strange way. Russia had to attack dozens of other of coutries that contain US military bases. Japan, Germany, the UK so on and so on. Most of the world would be pissed at Russia.

Most of Russia major cities lie in ruin millions are dead and India and China that stayed out of it now have convential armies that can roll over any remaining Russian forces.

What was the point to kill capitalist pigs? Russia itself are now capitalist pigs.

If Russia and the US ever went at it their destruction would leave a huge power vacuum that other up and comming countries would love.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join