It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ShooterSix
I've been watching this thread develop for quite some time, great posts and great debates.
I read something not too far above me that I'd like to argue.
First of all, I'm not sure what kind of Russian military clearance you have, but this type of revolutionary military breakthrough would be classified.
"Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.
A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."
So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.
DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
Posting related links is not relevant, because they are guessing and discussing,
such as posters on here discuss HAARP (supposed related American geo-weapon).
Don't argue a military victory with an empty gun.
In all honestly, I think you're overestimating the morale and training of Russian pilots
and tankcrews, which plays quite a role.
Sure, Russian can send quite a few out of date, poor conditioned armored vehicles at their chosen flashpoint, but don't expect them to get much farther.
Their newer T-90 variants are too low in the numbers to be of much relevance. This simply is not 1985.
Russia needs to, and they are to quite an extent shrink their armed forces so they can actually modernize their equipment and improve the training of their servicemen.
Originally posted by paraphi
This discussion is bonkers.
Russia could not defeat Europe in a non-nuclear war if waged today. Any contrary thinking is fantasy. You just need to look at the statistics…
Where do we start?
At sea… How much of Russia’s navy could actually get to sea – considering much of it has been rusting in port since the end of the Cold War due to a serious lack of cash.
As a war in Europe would not involve naval forces very much that’s probably good news for Russia.
In the air… Not a fancy air-show this! According to Flight International Nov 2006 “Effectiveness is sapped by aging aircraft – only 20% of the inventory is described by the air force as ‘modern’.
Due to lack of maintenance, around a third of the inventory is permanently unserviceable and flying hours are low – around 200,000h a year compared with 2 million in 1990…
The service remains plagued by a loss of experienced manpower”.
So, if the Russian non-naval air force is circa 2,000 combat jets, then around 600 are airworthy.
That is an air force outnumbered quite significantly by Western Europe. Germany, France and the UK could field just shy of 1,000 modern combat aircraft with trained crew. Add to this Spain, Italy, the Nordic countries, Turkey, Greece, the Low Counties etc…
On the ground… Various web sources seem to agree that the Russian army is circa 400,000 half of which are conscripts.
Vast amounts of hardware, with not much modern kit and we all know what happens when older Russian hardware meets the opposition.
Long and the short of it… Russia could never win a fight with Europe.
They would never try. They have neither the military capability nor the economic muscle. It would never happen.
Originally posted by donwhite
I recall the ABM Treaty. It provided each nation - US and USSR could choose one of two sites to defend. The USSR choose Moscow and the US choose our main ICBM base in North Dakota, over Washington, DC. There were two reasons for the US decision discussed in public. 1) That no existing ABM system was effective.
2) That the US relied on the MAD theory as a deterrent.
Software people said it would take 1-2 million lines of code to make an impenetrable ABM system, provided we had the hardware capability.
It was generally agreed it is impossible to write 2 million lines of code error free.
The general consensus was an effective ABM system was highly improbable and a mission unworthy of much investment.
For political reasons the funds for research work continued despite the public decision to abandon the project. CYA it is called.
Our side - ABM advocates - have been caught lying to us taxpayers several times, claiming ABM success when in reality there was no success.
I suspect we are planning to use nuclear tips on our ABM missiles and don’t want to say so to the public. In part because we may not be sure what the EMP can do to ourselves.
Without using nuclear bombs on the ABM tip, I have grave doubts as to the claimed success rate of shooting down an incoming missile. 10,000 km/hr is 2,700 m/sec. If a small nuke air burst has a 1 km kill radius you would have but 0.37 seconds in which to detonate the warhead. I am a techno freak, but I do not have that much confidence in anybody’s technology to do that.
As for the USSR and now the RF, I do not mean to demean those people but I cannot help but remember (1970s) the USSR was still using vacuum tube electronics when our equipment was moving into the 3 generation of solid state.
The shoot-down of KAL007 revealed the inadequacies of the Soviet’s electronics despite Kamchatka being its Most Secure Area in the far east of the USSR.
In conclusion, I think the ABM yes and ABM no is much to do about nothing. (Except for the billions of wasted tax dollars we could use better in other areas, like feeding the people in Darfur.) I have never lost one nights sleep over the Ruskies and their ICBMs.
I believe they [RF] have both the conventional and the strategic power to win any given war against Germany before the rest of Europe could change much about it I am quite confident that my opinion is defensible. In fact I would argue Germany is the only continental power that really needs to be reckoned with as a alliance of the rest [the EU] (which is a entirely fanciful idea anyways) could not in my opinion coordinate their efforts in any significant way even if they attempted to do so. When I once again start posting the evidence I have gathered ,in such large volumes, I believe you will be forced to change your mind and consider why the US still lacks such defenses while the RF deploys them in massive numbers and in sufficient quantity to largely blunt a full scale US nuclear strike.
Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
The claims made that the Russian military tech is on par in any way with the US military tech I think is unimportant.
Russian military doctrine is more important as the two wars in Iraq proved the Soviet military doctrine to be a load of crap. Immediately after the Gulf War before the fall of the Soviet Union, Soviet policy makers and Generals were re-working the Soviet Military Doctrine to meet the concerns of growing US Military supremacy in doctrine (not in technology).
The war in Chechnya first proved the Russian doctrine to be ineffective, in 2000 Putin sent the army back in with a new doctrine, but still archaic comparitively.
If Russia will learn from these wars the technology they have will not matter as much...skill on the battlefield is always more important than tools.
When I once again start posting the evidence I have gathered ,in such large volumes, I believe you will be forced to change your mind and consider why the US still lacks such defenses while the RF deploys them in massive numbers and in sufficient quantity to largely blunt a full scale US nuclear strike.
Note: Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - NPT - is a treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, opened for signature on July 1, 1968. There are currently 189 countries party to the treaty, five of which have nuclear weapons: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China. Only four recognized sovereign states are not parties to the treaty: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. India and Pakistan both possess and have openly tested nuclear bombs. Israel has had a policy of opacity regarding its own nuclear weapons program. North Korea acceded to the treaty, violated it, and later withdrew.
According to leaked intelligence, Israel has been developing nuclear weapons at its Dimona site in the Negev since 1958, and many nonproliferation analysts like David Albright estimate that Israel may have stockpiled between 100 to 200 warheads using the plutonium reprocessed from Dimona. The Israeli government refuses to confirm or deny possession of nuclear weapons, although this is now regarded as an open secret after Israeli low level nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu - later abducted and jailed by Israel - revealed the program to the British Sunday Times in 1986. [And he is still in prison in Israel, the only “democracy” in the Middle East.]
The former Soviet states of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, which inherited nuclear weapons from the former USSR, which also acceded to the NPT.
it's hard for me to do so much personal information justice in they way i normally respond.... It's a bit of a quandary but since we are clearly reading from the same book we can just as well discuss what we should discuss before we discuss anything.
Originally posted by rufusdrak
Russia's military doctrine has always differed greatly from that of the US.
Ever since the times of the Soviet Union Russia was known for its numerical superiority and thus its doctrines reflected that in quantity over quality whereas US was far more invested in quality over quantity.
This is reflected in every facet of their military forces and this is why a comparison of ONE particular Russian piece of equipment against ONE particular piece from American forces is not suitable as an argument over who would win in a war.
Take for example the russian MBT (main battle tank) like the T90. It weighs around 45 tons compared to the US Abrams that weighs about 70 tons.
While the technology is comparable, sure the Abrams with its crew of 4 compared to crew of 3 in a T90 can beat a T90 1 on 1.
But please note: US Abrams costs almost 5 million US dollars, while the T90 costs 1.3 million. For each one Abrams built Russia can massproduce 4 or 5 T90s, so while ONE Abrams can defeat ONE T90, you would never see that in a real life situation. But who would argue that a swarm of 10,000 T90's wouldn't easily obliterate 2 or 3,000 Abrams?
Thus is the Russian military doctrine, cheap and effective for mass production. It serves 2 purposes, the other being that they can mass produce these weapons to sell to other nations like India and China though please note that they sell only downgraded versions,
no country gets a full version upgraded package that is why the T72's blown up in Iraq by US Abrams can't really be compared to what would happen in a US/Russian conflict as they were downgraded AND had Iraqi crews (not as trained as Russians by a long shot).
4A recent study pointed out that the T-72 export
models, of which eight different ones were produced,
were to be made using alternative materials,
and not the first-rate materials in the Soviet
domestic models. Reports in Russian press articles
seem to indicate that the tanks used in
Chechnya, T-72A models, were far more survivable
than once thought.
This doctrine partly stems from WW2 when Russia had to mass produce their tanks in theatres like Stalingrad where the tanks were being driven off the production line without paint BY the factory workers right onto the battlefield front a few hundred yards away, they didn't have the luxury of long calculations and building complicated machines like the U.S.
And now the doctrine has trickled down to every facet of their engineering.
That is why Russian nukes are less accurate than US but far more powerful(and mrv'd at that) - to make up for what they lack in accuracy.
However it cannot be argued that even in the 'quality' department alot of Russia's equipment matches and surpasses that of the US. Though I won't get into specifics now unless someone wants to debate it in a friendly manner but one favorite of mine is the Ka-50 which is by far the best combat helicopter on earth beyond anything U.S. has.
I just don't understand why the USA is looking for conflict with the Russians.
Cold war is over. After the Soviet Union broke apart George senior should have embraced the Russians instead he missed an opportunity George II missed his chance after 911 when the Russians aided us and all Russia got was talk and the US expanding into its territory after the USA said it had no interest in Expanding into former Soviet states. The Russians have been lied to ignored and unappreciated and threaten so you wonder why they’re peed at USA and King George II.
Hope McCain will make things better I can see Obama wont.