Military Strength of Russia (and compared to other nations)

You stated it is sad to see 25 million dead from Russia to its own population.

Well that isn't very though provoking and sincere from you.


I think that is down right evil. EVIL.

The USA has been a jerk country now and again. But starving 25 million people is EVIL. The US government has done many evil things but nothing as grand as this.

At least I will admit that all people in power abuse it.

You take the side Russia is all great....Like the political assainations going on right now in killing reporters. And 25 million people starving to death is ok.

All I wanted to do is shoot back at the original poster crapping on the USA but seeing his super great Russia with no faults.....cough*25 million dead*cough* enlsave Eastern Europe.

Have your own opinion, but look at how much foriegn aid Russia gives poor countries to how much the USA gives. It is pathetic of a comparison that Russia doesn't care.

And to deny the internet would have been invented by Russia sooner or later. I would say later...like 30 years. Russia could have invented planes too if they weren't shooting there own citizens and sending them to Siberia back in the day.

Originally posted by StellarX
In operation since the early 60's in it's basic form according to some sources... Used to sink Tresher ( and almost the other submarine that was near surface at the time) back in 1963 shortly after Cuban 'missile crisis'; Russians tried to employ their new weapons for strategic advantage too soon and quick US reaction caught them with their pants mostly down.

StellarX, I sure hope you are not talking about the USS Thresher incident (April 10, 1963), because if you are, you are sadly mistaken if you think it was a Russian involvement incident, if that is indeed what you are insinuating/claiming. That "other" submarine was the Cavalla.

I worked for the Portsmouth Naval Repair Yard for a number of years as a Security/SEAL team underwater submarine ops consultant. As such, I currently have in my possession a printed 192 page, with photos, U.S. Government official booklet (34-920) of the investigation done by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy-Congress of the United States on the USS Thresher incident entitled: "Loss of the U.S.S. "Thresher," conducted on June 26, 27, July 23 1963, and July 1, 1964.

Conclusively, there was no Russian involvement.
The problem was in the U.S. Navy's lack of quality control procedures and inspection measures (improper weld techniques, onboard mechanical failures due to inadequate inspection and testing procedures, etc.) on newly built and repaired nuclear submarines.

[edit on 16-10-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by StellarX
Actually few American military networks and systems is hardened to any degree and basically no civilian infrastructure. Russia has been hardening it's infrastructure against such weapons since they first noticed the effect.

If your keeping this within a Cold War timeframe, you may well be correct, but since we all know that the Cold War has long ended (over 15+ years now depending upon what 'dating' you wish to go with), the US has long continued the process of hardening military and some aspects of civilain systems, whereas, the Russians have not continued the process and those systems that had been hardened are now deteriorating due to lack of upgrading, maintenance, funds, etc. The same thing is and has been occurring within the Russian military--all branches.

[edit on 16-10-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by StellarX
One high altitude blast from the SS-18 ( NATO 'SATAN'; interestingly) will turn North America into a pre-industrial society within mere seconds.

Umm, question:
Where is the vast amount of Russian populace, industry, and military bases, men, and hardware/equipment located within the vastness of Russia--East or West?

Once you answer that, consider that it will also only take one US EMP/nuclear device and detonation to put "Russia" back into the Stone Age, oopps, I mean "pre-industrial society" that most parts of Russia is still attempting to progress out of. You are also aware that over half of the Russian populace, if not more, does not have indoor bathrooms or indoor plumbing, running water, telephones, computers, TVs, etc? Would that be considered "pre-industrial," as well?
You might want to talk to a couple of Russian and Lithuanian professors I have, who visit their repsective families in Russia and Lithuania each year (during the summer).

Furthermore, even if the Russian accomplished such a feat, their military would not wholly be able to make or take any advantage from it, and definately not in some large degree. Also, you have failed miserably to mention that the US military, along with most of its critical military hardware, is hardened and more so than the Russians are currently.

[edit on 16-10-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by StellarX
Iraq? Afghanistan? Has it not become abundantly clear that you do not win wars against insurgencies ( especially those supported from outside by strong foreign powers) by destroying a country? It's quite evident that the Russians got more than they expected in Chechnya but is that not true for the USA in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam? I'm sorry but your line of reasoning weakens your assumed reality of the US as super power and at best put it on the same dysfunctional level as Russia If that is where you want to go that's fine with me.

Stellar

I see you failed to mention the most disasterous Russian outing to date: Afghanistan?
As such, the Russians lost how many men there in relations to the US in Iraq and Afghanistan combined? The only comparison is this: Russia's Afghanistan was America's Vietnam. Other than that, your mentions are rhetoric aimed at making the Russian look good and the US bad. How quaint.

[edit on 16-10-2006 by Seekerof]

look i will not go bashing the US military, the US military is a strong one, however i will argue the the russian Military preparedness and Military capability as a whole, and it's military infrastructure is also strong and superior just like the US military. nevertheless, i would like to note that if you would like to knock the whole world back to the stone age all you gotta do is launch a bunch of nuclear missles at high altitudes and destroy all the Sattelites and then cause a few malfuncions in power circuits around the world on all continents, and there you have it no electricity no communication, so basically it's not just russia or the US its the whole world. btw russia is already an industrialized society, i think you can see cars and planes flying and driving in and out of russia unless your blind....

Russia is not prepared to fight an all-out war with America, yet. It's military may be strong, but not enough. But having said that, it is important to note that Russia's economy is growing fast and it is aquiring new allies. Another point is that Russia has a more popular president than America
I'm not saying that Putin is completely 'clean'. Every political leader is forced to bend the rules sometimes for the benefit of the "cause" (whatever it may be) or the "majority". But unlike some previous presidents, Putin is giving back and doing something for the country. On the contrary, US's economy has suffered under Bush.
Europe is tolerating the US only because the US helped them in the past. But their tolerance with run-out one day if America continues with wars on the main continent.

Originally posted by sbob
You take the side Russia is all great....Like the political assainations going on right now in killing reporters. And 25 million people starving to death is ok.

Both Hitler and Stalin were tyrants. And in Russia, they are regarded almost the same. Why didn't nobody stand up to him? I don't know exact reason for that, but I can guess a few: He was a tyrant and if someone stood up to him - he would be killed. Whether its one person or a thousand. People were afraid that even if they did something, it would still fail as Stalin wasn't afraid to murder. It futile to rebel.

Another point you might want to remember is that Stalin wasn't even Russian. He was born in what we now know as Georgia.
Wikipedia: Stalin

However, historian Robert Conquest and other Westerners claim that the USSR was bound for industrialization, and that its speed along this course was not necessarily improved by Bolshevik influence. It has also been argued that Stalin was partially responsible for the initial military disasters and enormous human causalities during WWII, because Stalin eliminated many military officers during the purges, and especially the most senior ones, and rejected the massive amounts of intelligence warning of the German attack

So as you can see - Stalin was Stalin. You cannot generalise Russia as "evil" on the basis of one man (who wasn't even Russian).

Originally posted by Alex Dude
Europe is tolerating the US only because the US helped them in the past. But their tolerance with run-out one day if America continues with wars on the main continent.

What is exactly the "main continent" ? I am so glad Europe barely "tolerates" one of their best mutual friends in the world. You make it sound as if the US heads the "Warsaw Pact" of the West. Talk about arrogance.

Originally posted by pavil
What is exactly the "main continent" ?

That's just my way of putting it. Euroasia is the largest continent, and has been the center of World History. Main as in the center of civilization. I'm sure you see otherwise.
In any case, that isn't relevant to my points.

Originally posted by pavil
I am so glad Europe barely "tolerates" one of their best mutual friends in the world. You make it sound as if the US heads the "Warsaw Pact" of the West. Talk about arrogance.

America has been on-goingly involving itself in wars in Europe and Asia. It sticks its long nose into every hole possible. It can be a good thing, but one minds others' business more than his own. Why don't you wage a war against South America? I'm sure you'll find a country not "democratic" enough or a "threat to the US" if you look hard enough (or make up) for evidence.
Another point is it's obsession with democracy. Is "Democracy" the new "Communism" now? Even though neither is really bad, but they're just using it as an excuse.

Every nation has a reputation. How it is regarded or "respected" by the rest of the world. It is hard to gain a good reputation, but easy to loose. Russia has gained good reputation before. People from Russia could travel practicly anywere in Europe without Visas or anything of the sort. But it lost its reputation with Lenin's regime. Although Communism was meant for the better, it ended up for worse.

Same goes for America. It has gained good reputation before and now it is at the risk of loosing it. There is already hatred for US sparking up all over Europe and Asia. It's only a matter of time until it ends up, like USSR before it, if the US continues.

one differenece between stalin and hitler, is one learned from past mistakes, one didn't. and stalin was the one that learned from mistakes, hitler didn't. stalin after the initial german spring campaign, he gave much "looseness" to military commanders. hitler did not. nevertheless, i would like to point out once again, that if those 25million russians who died becasue of stalins mas indusrialization didn't die like they did, however unfortunate it is, i don't believe it was as unfortunate as a world dominated by Nazis!

Originally posted by Seekerof
I see you failed to mention the most disasterous Russian outing to date: Afghanistan? As such, the Russians lost how many men there in relations to the US in Iraq and Afghanistan combined?

The Soviet Afghan campaign is a much better analogue to Iraqi Freedom for casualty rates than the Vietnam War. Total Soviet dead, overly roughly eight years, amounted to 15000 or so. Current dead for Coalition forces is a little over 2000 in two and a half years. Taking into account superior medical techniques and superior body armor, vehicles, and other equipment, Coalition casualty rates look very similar to Red Army losses.

lefarkins.blogspot.com...

Russians have not continued the process and those systems that had been hardened are now deteriorating due to lack of upgrading, maintenance, funds, etc. The same thing is and has been occurring within the Russian military--all branches.

Seekerof, I'm curios to which systems you are referring to, and where have you learned about their operational and maintenance status?

Let me know, I'm curios to find out.

Thanks.

Once you answer that, consider that it will also only take one US EMP/nuclear device and detonation to put "Russia" back into the Stone Age, oopps, I mean "pre-industrial society" that most parts of Russia is still attempting to progress out of.

Yea, same here. I for one draw that kind of basic info from CIA 2006 fact book, and CIA guys kind of disagree with you on that.

Again, let me know what you are basing all that on.

You are also aware that over half of the Russian populace, if not more, does not have indoor bathrooms or indoor plumbing, running water, telephones, computers, TVs, etc? Would that be considered "pre-industrial," as well?

Even better, Seekerof did you know that all Americans ware Cowboy hats and boots, ride horses to the supermarket and shoot their guns into the air as a way of saying hello?

That's what I heard, yes sir, so how do you form your views on the state of Russian infrastructure?

Just curios, please take your time.

I see you failed to mention the most disasterous Russian outing to date: Afghanistan?
As such, the Russians lost how many men there in relations to the US in Iraq and Afghanistan combined?

Statistics please? Number of combat sorties, loss rates, etc. Thank you,

Make sure to look up CIAs involvement in the whole "Islamic fundamentalist" thing.

The only comparison is this: Russia's Afghanistan was America's Vietnam.

Sorry, as per the very word of CIA director, it's the other way around. His direct words "We're going to give the Soviets their own Vietnam."

You missed only by about a decade, it's ok though, let me remind you, Soviet-Afghanistan war, 1978 to 1989. I'm sure you are aware of when the Vietnam war started.

Alex Dude.........What the hail are you talking about dude??? I agree that the U.S. should not stick its nose in everything,but....what other country besides maybe,Britian...militarily will commit forces on a meaningful scale &really enforce U.N. sactions,etc &keep countries like Iran, N. Korea,Syria,etc in check???? Why in the world would we want to invade ANY country in South America.......No nukes..yet....No MAJOR theart to WORLD stability,etc. What do you think would happen if in a MAJOR WORLD ANNOUNCEMENTthe U.S.A. said.......we are pulling ALL of our ARMED FORCES out of Nato, Europe, Asia, & tha Middle East...from now on the U.S. will practice isolation like we did before WW2.....WE will just make the mainland STRONG..........Do you think the world would be better...if your answer is no then...STFU I really beleive that since the U.S. is the world's only TRUE superpower..we have comitments to our allies & UN to HELP protect stability around very hot spots in the world....I just wish other UN & NATO countries would booster up their armed forces alot better..so they wouldn't have to be so dependent on 70 to 80% of the U.S. military when times get tough for the UN, because if alot of these bad governments in these countries knew if they break the rules & had to face very tough sanctions & a very large REAL UNITED UN Military force.. not just MostlyUS, they would hopefully come to some sense. I disagree with Pres. Bush going into Iraq the way he did though, but....I'm glad Saddam is gone..but we are sacrificing alot for basically going at it alone, & Iraq militarily...wasn't really a Major threat anyway but they have oil,Now Iran & N. Korea...thats another story!!!!

[edit on 20-10-2006 by kvnkreed]

By the way ALEX DUDE...the US minded its own business & isolated itself from most of the world until...........that day JAPAN bombed Pearl Harbor..America's isolationist policies changed after that!!!!

the US minded its own business & isolated itself from most of the world until............that day JAPAN bombed Pearl Harbor..America's isolationist policies changed after that!!!!

This is what happens when all of Americas textbooks are printed by only four companies that belong to the same entity, and written by nobodies.

United States of Amnesia again.

Some say that it's the victor that writes history, I say the future is written by those who OWN history.

Good God, pretty soon Napoleon will turn out to be Austrian or something.

Alex Dude, you said Europe "tolerates" the US. Europe and the US are very very similar. An oil pipeline is running from Iraq (yes the land that the US invaded), under Afghanistan and Georgia (yes the lands that NATO is occupying), to Europe.

I think you need to re-examine your fact that Europe tolerates the US, and you may say, Europe takes part in what the US does, despite the only country actually DOING anything militarily being the UK.

And nobody is going to be "dropping" the US as you said, for a very long time. Even if the US attacks Syria, Israel, and Antartica. Economics keeps people together

Originally posted by kvnkreed
By the way ALEX DUDE...the US minded its own business & isolated itself from most of the world until...........that day JAPAN bombed Pearl Harbor..America's isolationist policies changed after that!!!!

first of all there was WWI which the US was involved in, second you don't need to actively be involved militarily or diplomaticly to be "involved" and plus the US went to war with the spanish, with teh Mexicans, with the british in 1812... plus the US banks and companies and economic intervention is noticeable, the banks of the US have supported Germany before WWII even under the Nazi leadership, and where active in the USSR, and in other european countries,and that economic development puts pressure on policy making by other countries, and therefore the US was never trully isolationist.....

I agree Inc2006, Some of the things ya said....are true.....but, I'm talking about military wise, conquest,bullying,etc...I'm not trying to give a history lesson of the US. For the most part America has not ever directly started a declared MAJOR war..of course, if you get attacked or the security of your country or allies is at hand...you gonna fight,even if you attack first... I completely stand by what I posted above. Also I strongly believe that......without most actions from the USA in the past to present-day... 60 plus years of history would not be recorded as the way that it is now..for the most part, the world would be a much dangerous place today if not for the USA. P.S. Imagine what the world would be like today if Japan or Germany had not attacked the US at all in WW1 & WW2,what if the allies didn't stop the axis,what would had happen if the Cuban missle crisis gotten out of hand, what would have happen if America did nothing & let the soviet union win the cold war..etc..imagine what will happen if Iran & N. korea get nukes,etc....frankly I'm glad that for the MOST part.. America has stood its ground when it really needed to & so should everybody else. ... I'm not saying the US is perfect...but, we have been a key player to stability in the word for a long time now..... in closing...what if america had lost the Revolutionary war.......................I don't think none of the above would be valid....

[edit on 21-10-2006 by kvnkreed]

[edit on 21-10-2006 by kvnkreed]

Originally posted by ludaChris
There is more than one way to go about fighting a war, theres no right or wrong way to do it. Its a matter of trial and error really, you learn from your mistakes, adjust your tactics and strategy accordingly

Since i consider blowing up innocent people a wrong way i certainly do not think all types of fighting and 'winning' are equal; some ways are better than other and they involve less terror and more liberation and if there is nothing to liberate someone from you really do not have the remotest beginning of a valid reason or excuse for your obvious crime.

No, the US military is set up to fight any where in the world against anyone. I'm not saying we could, but thats the way our forces are set up on paper. Read this about American Defense Policy. It tells you how US Warmaking Policy changes with current global situations as well as how we shift back and forth from doctrine based on percieved threats to those based on percieved capability.

The US military is set up to fight conventional wars by conventional methods and they were completely unprepared to fight a true late twentieth century war; they still are.

I'm sure Russia's policy too has shifted with the global events and happenings, read my link then compare it to Russian Policy and Doctrine which can also be found on Global Security. But most of all, the future of US Defense Policy is "deterence" for anyone thinking of challenging US military dominance in this world.
US Defense Policy

The Russian policy is 'deterrence' while the American policy is ' crush anyone by any means' when they step out of line; don't be fooled by globalsecurity as they certainly did not get this right. One can easily discover which of these powers were terrorizing the third world for the last century so exposing this 'policy' lie is not hard imo.

Yeah, my fingers can run away from me as well, its easy to get into a groove when typing on subjects such as this with so much information out there. I appreciate the complement on my commentary. Thanks.

There is always more information than people are aware of and while we are still mostly agreeing that probably wont last.

Stellar

Originally posted by sbob
Dude stop bashing the American military.

It's just facts and if you don't like them just disregard them.

You state what has the USA done with "talk the Talk"
Well we defended Korea from Russian and Chinese started war.

Actually South Korea started the war by invading the North and it is pretty hard to blame the North Koreans , Russians or Chinese for that...

Look at what China and Russia supported....North Korea.....Oh yeah that is talk the talk from Russia.

The leader of North Korea at the time had the backing of the vast majority of the Korean population and if there were democratic elections he would have won by a landslide hence American and western intervention and partitioning of the country. The only way the West could keep some influence in that country was to support a brutal dictator of their liking who during the Japanese occupation assisted the Japanese however he could while the guy Russian backed lost his wife in the fight against Japanese occupation. It's pretty clear who was on the side of Korean democracy and it was not the west.

The US supported South Korea. The right choice.

The worse choice and they knew it.

The US is not perfect either, and you deny Russia enslaving Eastern Europe for fifty years. The US rebuilt Western Europe.

The Western Europeans rebuilt Europe with their own labour and the Marshall plan was much the same as the current Iraqi rebuilding, the money ended up right back in American pockets. The west GAVE Eastern European to Stalin and they could very well have taken it back had they wanted to do so. The west were not on the side of democracy anyways and one only has to look at the post war examples of election rigging and assassination of political rivals in those areas to see that they saw Soviet occupation as a way to get rid of troublesome populations who would not easily be controlled by any less violent means than the Russians could and would impose. It was just another cynical way to ensure that most of the people in the region were enslaved by one side or the other.

The USA had the atomic bomb before Russia. The USA could have flattened russia, but didn't. If russia for the atom bomb first. Look in a mirror and honestly ask yourself what do you think that would have been like.

The USA could certainly have flattened a few Russian cities but the casualties they would have suffered in a ground war with Russia ( even in it's exhausted state) would have been very hard to explain and the Russians people were by then quite used to suffering and fighting all comers.

My opinion russia would have tried to enslave the world with there disfunctional police state.

Well since they gained so much by simply negotiating with the West i am not so sure they were that hell bent on war and especially not directly after the second world war. Stalin was no fooled and he would not have attacked while everyone in the West were still so well armed and generally ready. Since they did not have nuclear weapons at that time it would not have made any strategic sense to press the west for any concessions and those they did manage were clearly easily gained. The Soviet Union had no strategic 'aces' in 1945.

Russia has a great miltary, but to say the USA been declining from the 1970's is quite lacking in sensibility.

Well it's just the truth and if you do not understand what facts i base it on ask so that you may become informed.

Lets see we have this thing called the Internet...That you are using right now. One of the greatest inventions. Who invented it....The American military and US colleges in the late sixties and seventies.

You think the internet was intended to become what it is today? You think the US military WANTED this?

Yep, that is American tecnology you are using right now. I bet it hurts you to not think the declining Americans did that.

Well if you think 'inventing' the internet is making the average American working day shorter and more rewarding you must not know much. Did you know that Americans work the longest hours in the industrialized world? In fact the Japanese look quite lazy in comparison...

You are proud of your country, but don't bring my country down in the process.

This is about the investigation of truth, not which country is someow inherently 'better' 'on average'.

Because by linking stories. I can shoot back the 25 million people in the Soviet Union killed by Stalin.

I don't think that 25 million is good number but even assuming that it's so how will that change what the USA were doing to complete foreigners? At least Stalin killed mostly his own which makes it a internal matter which does not cause world wars; what the USA were doing certainly in large part gave us the second world war. One crime does not forgive another and i can not list every crime of every country when the topic is about a specific crime or nation.

That shows me a citizenry that can't think for itself and get rid of the mass murderer. 25 million people. (farm famines caused from policies, and even selling the food to overseas while citizens died.) and secret police dissappearances.

It shows me citizens who are up against a force they can not comprehend or deal with and citizens who do not know where to turn. The example of Germany a decade later and China some time after that( and this is very recent history with mass media etc) tells me that people have a very hard time understanding and dealing with the blatant criminality and genocidal intent of their self assumed rulers. Is it surprising that non of these people were fairly elected to the positions they held and that they were largely sponsored into power by western backers? I think it's in fact quite revealing.

I think it is crazy how proud you are Russia has all this work done on winning a nuclear war.

I am simply reporting on reality and why you want to confuse this with pride ( i am South African after all ) i have no idea. At the very least we can say that instead of wasting money on purely offensive weaponry the USSR invested very heavily in passive defensive measures.

I think you should be able to defend yourself, but to talk about winning a nuclear war with a couple billion dead is quite frightening and non human.

A nuclear war between the USA and the USSR will probably lead to the deaths of a few hundred million so i wont hardly call it the end of human civilization or humanity. Indulging in scare mongering will hardly lead to the freedom we all want.

Stellar