Military Strength of Russia (and compared to other nations)

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   

We still do not have Tesla's first over unity device on the market and that's been around for over a century.


LOL and what device is that?? The "black box?? Where has it been around for over a century?? Any evidence?? Anything at all outside of hearsay? Hearsay is not proof.. nor is speculation..


Do you not understand the forces ranged against these types of technologies?


Yes there are "forces at work" however con artist simply point to this anytime they fail to produce a device. They prey on people like yourself that will believe something just because you read it on Tom Bearden's website. You auto discount any and all opposing information without even studying it.

So basically a man with a few degrees already will pay money to accept another one? Tell me how accepting a degree for prior work is somehow illegal or at all relevant to this discussion? How does this invalidate his life's work and other degrees? What a lame attempted hatchet job this is turning out to be!


Are you so blind??? Why would someone need a fake PhD unless they are trying to use it for fraud??



The issues are not connected and there are enough information available on the MEG to replicate it as far as i know.


No actually Bearden claims that the MEG will not work unless its "specially tuned" and he has never told how this is accomplished.

Bearden:


Unless this dense signal environment and its phasing is carefully adjusted so that the phases are generally additive, COP > 1.0 is not possible, obviously, since it means no effective NET energy input occurs from the activated external environment, even though LOTS of excess energy is being radiated back into the MEG. One doesn’t seek and cannot use just a “noise” energy input from that external environment! One must have some coherence, so that the external environment inputs some usable free EM energy. So to go from the business of slow, painful hand adjustment of the phasing to automatic optimization is certainly a “doable”, but it is not a simple EE problem.




Well i am trying to stay on topic but this normally happens when one suggests that the USA is not a few thousands percent cooler and more heavily armed than everyone else put together.
Yea right who is "one" that you are referring to??? I know that I did not make such statements. Yet here we are discussing "scaler weapons".



You would think that the average American worker would notice how they can buy less and less, working longer hours while watching all their manufacturing jobs goes overseas, and wonder what is wrong when their military and bureaucrats fail to ensure at least that much for them? Are the clear economic decline of America really a logical and expected sign of it's supposed supremacy?
WOW so much for staying on topic!!! You don't have a clue what you are talking about you just like to rant against the US and attack anyone that doesn't share your destorted views.




posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
This page does a good job of analyzing Bearden and his claims.


Tom Bearden is today known as the self styled expert on over-unity physics. That is to say, electrical systems that put more energy out than goes in. However, this position of pre-eminence, has been achieved not by the conventional means of publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, attending mainstream scientific conferences, or even providing working demonstrations, but rather by playing to the crank fringe audience on the internet, with a sustained and substantial publicity effort that now exceeds 10 years in duration.

What has made the rise of Mr Bearden possible, has been the general absence of critical discussion of his methods and concepts. This is not surprising, since Mr Bearden has consistently kept away from those who are qualified to evaluate his claims, and prefers instead to keep company only with those who are uncritical in accepting his statements of knowledge.



Essentially, Mr Bearden is arguing over-unity is only possible with antiquated second rate equipment, in poorly equipped labs. Any attempt to use modern scientific equipment, accurate sensors, proper wire, measuring apparatus, or other standard lab equipment, will ruin the effect. The reader is left to ponder the consequences of this, as Mr Bearden’s stubborn belief that functional modern equipment kills off over-unity performance, may have relevance in terms of understanding his later researches.

In the conclusion, we are offered another fascinating and at the same time highly disturbing insight into the mind of Tom Bearden. Now, keep in mind, the above paper was total nonsense. No working product, or anything even remotely resembling a working product was ever developed using it, however, Mr Bearden ends his paper thus:

‘Well, there you have it. I've given you the benefit of what required most of my adult life to discover. The definitions advanced in this paper are rigorous. It took years of sweat and tears to come up with them. They're simple, but they will change your entire understanding of electromagnetics, power, and energy once you grasp them. Please read them, and ponder them, several times. One or two readings will not be sufficient to fully grasp what is said here.

Also, hopefully by this time the reader is beginning to experience the same emotions as I experienced when I finally discovered how simple it all really was. First one wants to laugh for about two hours at how truly ignorant we've all been. Then one wants to cry for about two hours for the same reason. This could all have been done a century ago, if we had ever really understood electromagnetics.’



Bearden began by asking me if I knew what Newton's Third Law was. I answered that I thought it was the 'action-reaction' law, which he agreed that it was. He then began saying that the present electromagnetics is flawed because it violates that Newtonian law. That we do detect transverse waves, but only in the electron gas of our antennnas and instrument probes. That 'not one of the equations attributed to Maxwell were actually written by him' etc., etc. Having read three of his books and all of his papers as downloaded from the BBS's, I'd heard these phrases many times before. I understood the phrases. Bearden knew who I was by now, and therefore didn't need to keep parroting them every time we talked. What I wanted to know was, how does the longitudinal propagation theory account for the known fact that EM waves are polarized one way or another, and so your receiving antenna's polarization (or, ORIENTATION) must match that of the transmitter for optimum reception.

That's all I wanted to know. I just wanted Bearden to explain polarization in terms of his longitudinal model. Evidently I pissed him off. He told me that I was just regurgitating what "they" had taught me in the standard electromagnetics courses. That I shouldn't believe them. That I should read and re-read his books to get straightened out on these points.

I felt he was evading my question. I was asking about polarization. If he didn't know the answer, or if he hadn't considered the question before, or even if he didn't feel like talking to me about it, he could have politely told me so. I would have accepted that. Everyone who has a theory is allowed to develop it. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Next, Tom Bearden was attempting to tell me that polarization itself was "a bunch of bullsh*t"! Trying to get a word in edgewise, while trying to remain polite (after all, I was making the phone call, intruding on his time), I reminded him that his books didn't deal with polarization. He said he didn't have to, because it was all bullsh*t. That I needed to think (emphasis his), and that if I were really paying attention to what he was saying, I would understand and wouldn't be asking these illogical questions!

www.phact.org...

There's a LOT more on that page but I don't want to quote TOO much here. Basically Bearden claims everything written in textbooks is wrong, and he knows the answers to it all, and "redefines" Cancer and AIDS and other diseases.

[edit on 9/9/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heckman
LOL and what device is that?? The "black box?? Where has it been around for over a century?? Any evidence?? Anything at all outside of hearsay? Hearsay is not proof.. nor is speculation..


So why assume it's hearsay or such when it was experimentally tested and talked about in the press? It's even patented...

freepatentsonline.com...

patft.uspto.gov...
%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=0685957.PN.&OS=PN/0685957&RS=PN/0685957

Ignorance of reality does not change it and you would be well advised to take note of the fact that you do not know it all.


Yes there are "forces at work" however con artist simply point to this anytime they fail to produce a device.


Which is quite true and why it's so easy for the establishment to marginalize these technologies and their proponents.


They prey on people like yourself that will believe something just because you read it on Tom Bearden's website. You auto discount any and all opposing information without even studying it.


Thanks for assuming i must be stupid and badly informed for disagreeing with you. Logic in action when your the only authority in the world.
I would have you know that i DID study the topic and it's why i believe what i do...


Are you so blind??? Why would someone need a fake PhD unless they are trying to use it for fraud??


There is nothing fake about accepting or paying for honoury degrees when you have already done work enough in the field to qualify yourself as such. Where is the evidence that he paid for the degree or that there was any illegal activity involved here? Why do you hate the man so?


No actually Bearden claims that the MEG will not work unless its "specially tuned" and he has never told how this is accomplished.


Which he said had to do with patent issues but here is what Naudin had to say about it after replicating the MEG.

peswiki.com...:MEG

www.rexresearch.com...

jnaudin.free.fr...


Yea right who is "one" that you are referring to??? I know that I did not make such statements. Yet here we are discussing "scaler weapons".


Indeed we are but clearly that can not be as you do not know about and understand it. It's ok that you believe in Naudin but clearly your mind is only going to go that far. Why stop when the whole of the last century are now provably a big lie?


WOW so much for staying on topic!!! You don't have a clue what you are talking about you just like to rant against the US and attack anyone that doesn't share your destorted views.


It's the truth and sadly you seem completely unaware. American reigns supreme and all the economic woes are just a 'misunderstanding' based on some bad policy. It's all just a big mistake having nothing to do with who really runs the world.


Stellar



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
This page does a good job of analyzing Bearden and his claims.


It's a hatched job and a very bad one at that. Assuming ignorance in all your readers is apparently the basis of their arguments.


Tom Bearden is today known as the self styled expert on over-unity physics.


Well i am reading his 900 odd page book and last i checked few of the others have bothered to present their view of physics in a form where i can be attacked in all detail.


That is to say, electrical systems that put more energy out than goes in. However, this position of pre-eminence, has been achieved not by the conventional means of publishing papers in peer reviewed journals, attending mainstream scientific conferences,


He has been published in main stream journals and papers and the science his theories are based on are ALL in papers and journals by Nobel prize winners and others. He has not 'invented' a new physics as much as put together the work of other eminent scientist who did not want their careers destroyed by saying expressly what they discovered. This is all well known if one goes back to the work of Maxwell, Heaviside, Lorenz, Lorentz, Poynting and many others.


or even providing working demonstrations,


it's been replicated by at least two others groups as far as i know and they DO HAVE MULTIPLE PATENTS WITH THE US PATENT OFFICE.


but rather by playing to the crank fringe audience on the internet, with a sustained and substantial publicity effort that now exceeds 10 years in duration.


What substantial publicity effort? Is having a website a substantial publicity effort these days? What makes this site substantial is not what it can manage in terms of publicity but the scope of the scientific literature it covers.


What has made the rise of Mr Bearden possible, has been the general absence of critical discussion of his methods and concepts.


His been under attack by journals and papers since the very first day and he has not only had to deal with the limited (as there is no real defense of the indefensible) scientific criticism but also with all ways of abuse and general character assassination the science establishment indulges in when their paradigms are questioned in a highly scientific manner.


This is not surprising, since Mr Bearden has consistently kept away from those who are qualified to evaluate his claims,


If one looks at his site it's easy to notice that he addresses his critics in scientific style when they actually attack one of his claims in a scientific manner. Since one can not attack hard science with bad science they infrequently do and normally stick to abuse which he as far as i know mostly ignore.


and prefers instead to keep company only with those who are uncritical in accepting his statements of knowledge.


Which can easily be said of every scientist in the science establishment who refuse to 'hang out' with anyone who has any major problem with their adherence to dogma. Bearden seems like a old style scientist himself so i am not surprised that he displays similar ideas when it comes to those who attack his person and not his work. Would you want to hang out with people who hate everything you stand for?


Essentially, Mr Bearden is arguing over-unity is only possible with antiquated second rate equipment, in poorly equipped labs.


Essentially he argues that he has to make do with what he has and that is why he wants the US government involved and do full scale development and employment to save the American economy. He does not choose to work in the conditions he is.


Any attempt to use modern scientific equipment, accurate sensors, proper wire, measuring apparatus, or other standard lab equipment, will ruin the effect.


Over unity principles have and can be proven on any lab bench and there are dozens of examples of simple tests in hard core scientific literature.


The reader is left to ponder the consequences of this, as Mr Bearden’s stubborn belief that functional modern equipment kills off over-unity performance, may have relevance in terms of understanding his later researches.


He does not believe that but it's no surprise that the authors of this hatched job must invent ever more apparent psychological problems they can attack. Straw man gallery here.


In the conclusion, we are offered another fascinating and at the same time highly disturbing insight into the mind of Tom Bearden. Now, keep in mind, the above paper was total nonsense. No working product, or anything even remotely resembling a working product was ever developed using it, however, Mr Bearden ends his paper thus:


Blatant falsehood as the patented MEG easily proves. It's been replicated and other researchers have working models.


. Having read three of his books and all of his papers as downloaded from the BBS's, I'd heard these phrases many times before. I understood the phrases. Bearden knew who I was by now, and therefore didn't need to keep parroting them every time we talked.


It's times like these that i wonder why i even respond to such blatant attempts of deceit and lying. No one with ANY scientific background and research abilities can read all Beardens books and NOT realise what his saying after noticing that all his work DOES come from main stream scientific sources. It's hilarious to see the author here pretend that he is some kind of honest agent trying to discover 'the truth'.


What I wanted to know was, how does the longitudinal propagation theory account for the known fact that EM waves are polarized one way or another, and so your receiving antenna's polarization (or, ORIENTATION) must match that of the transmitter for optimum reception.


So basically you are asking the rabbit why it eats carrots instead of just observing it and dealing with it? Why should Tom Bearden be held to standards most well accepted scientific theories would collapse under even after being accepted for a hundred years? It's always funny to see people demanding perfect explanations of everyone but main stream scientist.



That's all I wanted to know. I just wanted Bearden to explain polarization in terms of his longitudinal model. Evidently I pissed him off. He told me that I was just regurgitating what "they" had taught me in the standard electromagnetics courses. That I shouldn't believe them. That I should read and re-read his books to get straightened out on these points.


Probably should have read the books to start with as then you would not be asking pointless questions. Why make this a issue when it can not alter the reality of observed energy from the vacuum?


I felt he was evading my question. I was asking about polarization. If he didn't know the answer, or if he hadn't considered the question before, or even if he didn't feel like talking to me about it, he could have politely told me so. I would have accepted that. Everyone who has a theory is allowed to develop it. Rome wasn't built in a day.


Funny that i am reading this then.


Next, Tom Bearden was attempting to tell me that polarization itself was "a bunch of bullsh*t"! Trying to get a word in edgewise, while trying to remain polite (after all, I was making the phone call, intruding on his time), I reminded him that his books didn't deal with polarization. He said he didn't have to, because it was all bullsh*t. That I needed to think (emphasis his), and that if I were really paying attention to what he was saying, I would understand and wouldn't be asking these illogical questions!


www.phact.org...

Well said imo. Why ask questions what can not alter observed reality? Should we go back to working without electricity because we do not understand energy itself?


]There's a LOT more on that page but I don't want to quote TOO much here. Basically Bearden claims everything written in textbooks is wrong, and he knows the answers to it all, and "redefines" Cancer and AIDS and other diseases.


Your wasting your time and what you want to believe is quite clear here. Bearden does NOT claim that and he simply did not come up with even half the things he is talking about. Even i knew that our current treatment of cancer was completely devoid of reason and that AIDS was old stuff by a new name. It sickens me that you will use your own ignorance as basis for assuming madness in another. Pathetic.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Hey, nice job in pointing the finger at me for quoting a page written by someone else.
I forgot that there's no point in saying anything different from you since you know it all already and we're just ignorant little peons who only attack what we don't understand and won't bother educating ourselves.

[edit on 9/10/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   

There is nothing fake about accepting or paying for honoury degrees when you have already done work enough in the field to qualify yourself as such. Where is the evidence that he paid for the degree or that there was any illegal activity involved here? Why do you hate the man so?

Did you follow the story about trinity collage on the page zaphod58 listed??


So why assume it's hearsay or such when it was experimentally tested and talked about in the press? It's even patented...

LOL and here I thought you were talking about the "black box" when you were talking about the Tesla Radiant Energy Device that requires a structure ABOVE THE IONOSPHERE!!!! THATS over 60 miles..


We still do not have Tesla's first over unity device on the market and that's been around for over a century.

Just to let you know there have not been any structures around for a century thats over 60 miles tall..
If you ever want to learn about real world "free energy" devices that HAVE been around for over a century. Then learn about Stirling engines and their possible new applications for use with Solar , Geo Thermal heat , Radioisotopes ...


Which he said had to do with patent issues but here is what Naudin had to say about it after replicating the MEG.

YES LETS !!! Jean Naudin:


Unfortunately, I have not yet succeeded in the closed loop and in spite of the "apparent" power measured, the RLoad resistor doesn't heat up too much, it is only a bit warm. I think that it still remain a possibility of a measurement artifact ( not a measurement error ). ... A COP >>1 will be fully confirmed only with a closed loop and a self-running device...


It clearly hasn't been able to work in closed loop!!!!



Blatant falsehood as the patented MEG easily proves. It's been replicated and other researchers have working models.

REALLY and what reputable researchers is that ??

On this website you can see some explanations as to how when improperly tested the MEG tests for over unity but does not perform in the real world just like what Jean is describing

www.phact.org...



Well i am reading his 900 odd page book


Its clear you have already bought into his BS ... Literally..



Probably should have read the books to start with as then you would not be asking pointless questions. Why make this a issue when it can not alter the reality of observed energy from the vacuum?


If you ever want to come out of your shell and want to learn about Zero Point Energy and the possible REAL conversion of it into usable energy , then get a book called Practical Conversion of Zero-Point Energy by Thomas F. Valone.


[edit on 11-9-2006 by Heckman]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Hey, nice job in pointing the finger at me for quoting a page written by someone else.


I think i made the distinction between what you said and what the other guy said quite clear in my post and if people are not aware how the quote/external source system works you have no business holding me responsible for that.


I forgot that there's no point in saying anything different from you since you know it all already and we're just ignorant little peons


There is no point when YOU disagree with me as your ideas never hold up when attempting disagreement. I do NOT know it all but i am always willing ( and apparently rather able ) to defend my views&beliefs which seems to irritate you no end. I do NOT believe that everyone are peons or ignorant but i certainly hold some reservations as to you general ability on a wide variety of topics.


who only attack what we don't understand and won't bother educating ourselves.


That is what 99.9% of people on Earth do including me and everyone i have ever met. People are arrogant in that they think they know enough to get by and everything we learn tends to reinforce this stupid idea. I have no problem with people attacking what i believe/suggest/consider but i do expect them to actually do so in a generally non vapid way.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heckman
Did you follow the story about trinity collage on the page zaphod58 listed??


Yes i did and it's the type of nonsense i expect of those who hate anyone involved with free energy. I am surprised you will use the same type of information to discredit people who have done so much for the this field of research.


LOL and here I thought you were talking about the "black box" when you were talking about the Tesla Radiant Energy Device that requires a structure ABOVE THE IONOSPHERE!!!! THATS over 60 miles..


Actually he had functioning devices ON earth based on that technology and i am surprised&dismayed to see how easily you dismiss Tesla.


Just to let you know there have not been any structures around for a century thats over 60 miles tall..
If you ever want to learn about real world "free energy" devices that HAVE been around for over a century. Then learn about Stirling engines and their possible new applications for use with Solar , Geo Thermal heat , Radioisotopes ...


Heard of those but just mentioned Tesla as he is NOT obscure like they are. Thanks for assuming ignorance which you then embody soon after.


YES LETS !!! Jean Naudin:
It clearly hasn't been able to work in closed loop!!!!


So Naudin failed to replicate it properly? I guess that is not possible in your mind as you clearly just hate Bearden!


REALLY and what reputable researchers is that ??

On this website you can see some explanations as to how when improperly tested the MEG tests for over unity but does not perform in the real world just like what Jean is describing

www.phact.org...


Where on earth is the model they are basing their claims on?


Its clear you have already bought into his BS ... Literally..


It's the science behind this field which you apparently know nothing about. I am not surprised considering the nature of your attack on Bearden. What has Naudin achieved that can not be taken apart in a few days? I have told you before that the devices is not nearly as important as the science and that's why i consider Bearden's word over most others. He can actually explain the 'why'!


If you ever want to come out of your shell and want to learn about Zero Point Energy and the possible REAL conversion of it into usable energy , then get a book called Practical Conversion of Zero-Point Energy by Thomas F. Valone.


Energy from the vacuum is NOT based on ZPE! I will check out Valone eventually but why bother with extraction energy from ZPE when that's not what any of these devices are based on?

Stellar



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Actually he had functioning devices ON earth based on that technology and i am surprised&dismayed to see how easily you dismiss Tesla.

The patent has to do with a device to harness possitive charged atmosphere caused by cosmic rays, and the negative charge in the ground. In order to have any large amount of useable energy a structure would have to reach from the ground to above the ionosphere.

Positive particles are stopped at the ionosphere and between it and the negative charges in the ground is a distance of over 60 miles.


Energy from the vacuum is NOT based on ZPE! I will check out Valone eventually but why bother with extraction energy from ZPE when that's not what any of these devices are based on?

*sigh* Zero Point Energy is the REAL energy in an absolute zero vacuum. Mr Beardens devices are based on "waves from the time domain" or in other words, based on the gullibility of people like yourself.

Its people like Bearden that give REAL free energy researchers a bad name.

I'm through with you. Its pointless debating with someone that feels that they know everything yet stumble on the simplest concepts of logic.



[edit on 11-9-2006 by Heckman]



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heckman
The patent has to do with a device to harness possitive charged atmosphere caused by cosmic rays, and the negative charge in the ground. In order to have any large amount of useable energy a structure would have to reach from the ground to above the ionosphere.


For some reason you think you know something about Tesla while it's so blatantly obvious that you do not. Please consider the fact that his devices had absolutely NOTHING to do with cosmic rays from the Sun and that the radiant/cosmic energy was just the best way he could/chose to describe where the 'ether' energy came from.


Positive particles are stopped at the ionosphere and between it and the negative charges in the ground is a distance of over 60 miles.


freepatentsonline.com...

Tell me where you see the mention of the 60 mile high structure in either Tesla's work or Meyers work or even Huston's.


*sigh* Zero Point Energy is the REAL energy in an absolute zero vacuum. Mr Beardens devices are based on "waves from the time domain" or in other words, based on the gullibility of people like yourself.


Mister Bearden's devices do nothing but use some of the OBSERVABLE energy ( ZPE is not observable) that was measured by Maxwell, Heaviside, Poynting, Lorenz and Lorentz. The fact is that energy streams from a dipole ( which is what fossil fuels are used to create) in ALL directions and that but a minuscule part of it ( the diverged Poynting component ) is actually being used by our current energy infrastructure. This was all well understood back in the 1870's and that is why so many people had devices that could this energy in the next few decades.


Its people like Bearden that give REAL free energy researchers a bad name.


It's the hopelessly arrogant like yourself who attack those who actually try explain the source of the energy that really does damage. This field will NEVER gain credibility unless it becomes acceptable in scientific norms and your not helping one bit towards that end.


I'm through with you. Its pointless debating with someone that feels that they know everything yet stumble on the simplest concepts of logic.


It's not like i have a degree in this field but at least i did a minimum bit of research which you clearly have no comprehension of. It's sad that two people who believe in a great future for the planet need argue over technicalities because one choose to attack other scientist because of his complete ignorance on the scientific background of the field.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 13 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Mister Bearden's devices do nothing but use some of the OBSERVABLE energy ( ZPE is not observable) that was measured by Maxwell, Heaviside, Poynting, Lorenz and Lorentz.


ZPE is observable through the Casimir Effect



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by StellarX
Mister Bearden's devices do nothing but use some of the OBSERVABLE energy ( ZPE is not observable) that was measured by Maxwell, Heaviside, Poynting, Lorenz and Lorentz.


ZPE is observable through the Casimir Effect


That is actually the observation of vacuum energy that has been hijacked either out of ignorance or to divert attention from where all our energy already comes from. ZPE extraction may very well be possible but we have easier things to go after.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Wassup ya'll!

I go to Every thread that is about Russia.

So lets see.......you guys have discussed all the wars in history.....lol.....hell, I think you guys have just discussed world history! Cool!

Ok, first of all, I'd like to thank the pro Russia opinions. The opinions about Russia's army being rusty and falling apart are complete bs.

Now, first of all, and most importantly, quantity over quality? Nah, I don't think so! Look below, that looks very quality to me:







i56.photobucket.com...











external image

i56.photobucket.com...





external image


While you expected AK-47s, T-72s, Mig-25s/29s, BMPs, Mi-24s, and Makarovs, what you saw in the above pictures was something different. This is alot of Russia's new stuff. If you don't know about all the cool new stuff Russia has, either you don't wanna find the stuff, or you are not researching hard enough. And that's only the stuff we get to see, Russia, like any smart country will work to surprise us, and is gonna avoid showing its stuff. Yes, we all know that Russia's >whole< army isn't composed of the above, that older stuff is still in use >like in all other armies!< , but Russia is slowly replacing the old with the new, and so it won't be long till Russia's army is completely modernized. I remember that Russia has made a lot of cheap looking crappy designs before. But not anymore. To those of you who imagine Russia's army to be made of T-72s and AK-47s, open your eyes. Also, there is no doubt that Russia's Spetsnaz is among, if not >the< best trained, equiped, and in highest numbers in the world.

Russia's new weapons can match or surpass many Western arms

US.......Patriot Russia......S400 Comments: no country has yet made an equivalant counterpart to the S400

US...........M1A3/A4? Abrams Russia........... Black Eagle MBT comments: Sadly, only a few Black Eagles have been made. Russia is smart, so therefore it will either produce the Black Eagle eventually in good numbers, or make an even better tank. Perhaps it already is hiding an even better tank?

US...........F-15 Russia...............Su-37 Comments: Many of Su-37's features are unmatched. Russia has a reputation since the Korean War of making some of the finest aircraft to fly the sky. In WW2, though, US ruled with the P51 Mustang. A fine aircraft, but that was then, this is now. Not to mention Russia's superb missiles. A book known as "military history of aviation" that I read at the library stated stuff that included "Russia is second to none in aircraft weapons" and "Even the original Su-27 was one of the best aircraft and is still the yardstick by which Western aircraft are measured"

US..............B1B Russia...........Tu-160 The book I mentioned above mentioned the Tu-160 as the best bomber in the world. B1B is pretty good, too, though. Oh, btw, wasn't there some defect on the B1? I thought I heard about that somewhere

US........M-16A5/SCAR/XM8/HK416 Russia...........AKS-74M/AK-100series/An-94 The AKs and the US weapons are all good. However, the An-94 has a unique 2 round burst with no recoil which is a feature superior to all the other assault rifles mentioned here

US.........Barett M82 A1, others Russia...........KVCK/SV-98, others I think the US sniper rifles are better then the Russian ones, but the Russian ones are still a force to be reckoned with.

US............Stryker Russia..........BTR-90 I don't know much about the Styker, so I can't really say, but I'd take a BTR-90 Anytime over that crappy APC!

US.....LA class Russia......Typhoon, Okula Russian Subs have good firepower, US ones are quieter,,, I don't know much about Subs, though, I should research more on this

US.....Commanche/Apache Russia..........Mi-28N/Ka-52 In my opinion, I don't see why US is wasting money on Commanche when the Apache is already a good choppa. Mi-28N isn't too bad. Ka-52 is a Really good helicopter, and the West has no counterpart to it. Oh, since Ka-52 has a second propeller on top rather one on its tail, does that mean if it takes an RPG hit to the tail that it will stay in the air?

US nukes......more of em Russian nukes..........bigger and stronger, plus more of em are mobile. Well, we all know that if there was a nuke war, this 2 badasses would wipe each other and all other nations out. But the Topol-M might perhaps break the tie a bit?

The thing is, its obvious that Russia is hiding alot from all of us. Russia may have even more stuff then this. Russia may have unbelievable tech. But we don't know. Only time will tell


For now, just remember, don't underestimate Russia, and remember that Russia is >Russia



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
you'll think differently when they beat the **** out of you in the army. Im russian, and im not scared to admit that russian army is a mess. We have good tech, but no money to produce it. Russia is in no possition to wage a war right now.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   


posted by Russian soldier

First, I'd like to thank pro Russian opinions. The opinions about Russia's army being rusty and falling apart are complete bs . . most importantly, quantity over quality? Nah, I don't think so! While you expected AK-47s, T-72s, Mig-25s . . what you saw in the pictures was something different. This is Russia's new stuff. Russia, like any smart country will work to surprise us, and is gonna avoid showing its stuff. Yes, Russia's whole army isn't composed of the above, but Russia is slowly replacing the old with the new . . Also, there is no doubt that Russia's Spetsnaz is among the best trained, equipped, and in highest numbers in the world.

“ . . no country has yet made an equivalant counterpart to the S400 . . Black Eagle MBT comments: only a few Black Eagles have been made. it will either produce the Black Eagle eventually in good numbers, or make a better tank. Many Su-37's features are unmatched. Not to mention Russia's superb missiles. A book known as "military history of aviation" that I read at the library stated stuff that included "Russia is second to none in aircraft weapons . . Even the original Su-27 was one of the best aircraft and is still the yardstick by which Western aircraft are measured . . the An-94 has a unique 2 round burst with no recoil which is a feature superior to all the other assault rifles mentioned her . . “

US nukes . . more . . But the Topol-M might perhaps break the tie a bit?
It’s obvious Russia is hiding alot from us. Russia may have even more stuff than this. For now, just remember, don't underestimate Russia, and remember that Russia is a great, powerful country. Don't mess with Russia. Oh, and I'm so proud that I will soon be serving the army of this great country. It will be an honor. Alright ya'll, see ya later . . “ [Edited by Don W]



You are following in a great tradition, Mr. Russian Soldier. The Russian Army served valiantly in the First World War. It was even more heroic in the Second World War, especially at Stalingrad. I believe Nikita Khrushchev was the political Commissar of Stalingrad. The Battle of Stalingrad was the turning point of the war with Germany. The Russian people excelled at Leningrad. 900 days. As long as there are tanks, the Battle of Kursk will be studied. You have a great tradition to uphold.

On the critical side, in my experience, very few sources on military weaponry and state of readiness are reliable. One of the oldest and for me by far the most reliable, is the UK's Jane’s. I’d take Jane’s over the Pentagon anytime when it comes to weaponry. I do not believe Jane’s deals in the state of readiness of any military or naval forces. That is too subjective and needs the kind of info Jane’s is not into.

The most recent numbers I saw said the Russian Federation is spending $19 billion equivalent annually on its war preparedness. Our side says that is only half the real expenditure. That may be, but it tells me Russians are about 11.97 times as smart as Americans. That being the ratio of 38 to 455. The Russian people are benefitting from the 1991 end of he Cold War. After 3 generations of sacrifice, now that can build a better Russia. But not the American people. After 15 years, our government is still looking for an enemy worthy of this great expenditure. Say obscene. First Afghan, then Iraq and now Lebanon’s Hezbollah seem to be the best we can come up with. If you believed in conspiracies you might think OBL is an operative of the CIA? A commission agent for the much vaunted and often warned against, military industry complex.

Continuing in the vein of comparative armaments, do any of you think we could petition ATS to make a deal with Jane’s to let us “read only” from their vast repertoire ? Say for 6 months on a trial basis?

jwaf.janes.com...
www-cgsc.army.mil...
stinet.dtic.mil...



[edit on 9/16/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite


The most recent numbers I saw said the Russian Federation is spending $19 billion equivalent annually on its war preparedness. Our side says that is only half the real expenditure. That may be, but it tells me Russians are about 11.97 times as smart as Americans. That being the ratio of 38 to 455. The Russian people are benefitting from the 1991 end of he Cold War. After 3 generations of sacrifice, now that can build a better Russia. But not the American people. After 15 years, our government is still looking for an enemy worthy of this great expenditure. Say obscene. First Afghan, then Iraq and now Lebanon’s Hezbollah seem to be the best we can come up with. If you believed in conspiracies you might think OBL is an operative of the CIA? A commission agent for the much vaunted and often warned against, military industry complex.

Continuing in the vein of comparative armaments, do any of you think we could petition ATS to make a deal with Jane’s to let us “read only” from their vast repertoire ? Say for 6 months on a trial basis?

jwaf.janes.com...
www-cgsc.army.mil...
stinet.dtic.mil...


[edit on 9/16/2006 by donwhite]


just wanna make a little point here, OBL was paid by Saudi Arabia adnt eh US to go fight the USSR in afghanistan in the 80's, then they didn't pay any attention to him. OBL is no "fighter for islam" and all the stuff he says, he's a bussiness man, and his bussiness is war adn fighting, he recieved typically a contract in the 80's to fight the soviets, then after that he offered his services to the saudi arabians once again to fight the communist regime in yemen, but they threw him away, so he got a grudge because he had to pay those in his "militia" and then he offered to fight sadam in kuwait adnt hey still threw him away, now you see Al-qaida isa corporation, the people that fight in it have vacation leaves, payed insurance policies, salaries all the works ofa normal modern day large corporation, and when the Americans and the saudi's gave hima bad time, in which they threw him away and didn't keep his services, he now wants to have revenge, and he had much revenge on 9/11, and now he can't stop because now he's in too deep.

i would say the russian military is not in much shambles, and can fight a war. in case of a war, the russian military can be rejuvenated because the russian governemtn would rather direct much needed money to the army in case of war rather than to anything else, just like happened in WWII. and as long as a strong leader is in russia, this can be done, but if a puppet rises, well russia won't ahve much of a bright future...



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by zikan42
you'll think differently when they beat the **** out of you in the army. Im russian, and im not scared to admit that russian army is a mess. We have good tech, but no money to produce it. Russia is in no possition to wage a war right now.



Do you know how many times I've had the **** beaten out of me? I've lived a harsh street life, but I was beaten before I became what I am now-a powerful, crazy at times, hotheaded, reckless, risk taker, "Mr. readytodie, Idon'tcareaboutlife, and respectable. There is >nothing< in life that will ever make me be afraid again. And death, I am ready. And don't think I don't know about what goes on in Russian army, I have news, you know. I talk to people, etc. But I know what happens in other armies, too. And someone beating the **** out of me will not make me think differently. Besides, beating me up is a very very hard thing to do. Except maybe for those in higher command. But I know how to gain respect. We shall see.

And I never said that some of Russia's army isn't a mess. Just like any country's. More or less. But Russia is still the best.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   
The Russian army is the best thing for me. Its all I want from life, and something that I spend most of my time studying and thinking about. Its the one thing I want to do. Its what I've been preparing for. My recklessness, and having nothing to lose makes me a perfect soldier. I won't have ever have a family or relationships, everyone I know will soon be half a world away, and life to me is nothing, so I'm ready for all risks, especially since I've already had brushes with death and been in a place worse then death. I'm ready for the Russian army and all the challenges that come with it.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Continuing in the vein of comparative armaments, do any of you think we could petition ATS to make a deal with Jane’s to let us “read only” from their vast repertoire ? Say for 6 months on a trial basis?





[edit on 9/17/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heckman
I personally do not question the quality of Russian fighting equipment. Or the moral of it troops. However I do not think that the form of command that was in place during the cold war would have been very effective in a major conventional conflict against NATO however that has changed ALLOT since then.


If they managed to survive the loss of entire army groups in the recent past one has to wonder how much bad command or complete absence of it will affect their performance against a lesser enemy such as current NATO.


People talk about this and about that... What it all comes back to is that Russia ,and the US have possession of the ultimate in warfare technology. The ability to utterly wipe a nation off the face of the earth in a matter of hours.


If your talking about nuclear weapons that is not true even for the USA and Russia as there are just far too many targets and people to kill with weapons that only kill very well when people are standing around in city streets waiting to be incinerated. Both countries have far too many counter force/strategic targets to in the end do their best to annihilate each other's cities much as that has been talked about. If the USA decided to aim for the cities and industrial areas they are unlikely to achieve much considering the vast efforts the former USSR/Russia has spent on reinforcement of industrial sites and shelters for the workers.


The real deciding factor on a global military scale. After all the Bull%$#@ is cleared out of the way the fact is that RUSSIA still has a massive amount of Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles equipped with THERMO NUCLEAR WARHEADS..


The other fact people overlook is that Russia never intended to fight the third world war without their use on every level of command which explains a great deal about how they design weapons and choose to structure their armed forces.


No mater what you think of Russian tanks or Russian guns or Russian planes.. When it comes to those giant life ending rockets , Russia is still a world superpower.


According to my research ( i have posted extensively on topic on ATS) they are not only a superpower but in terms of ICBM/SLMB firepower their forces may very well be superior in terms of survivability and throw weight. If one then takes into account their national ABM defenses based on the S-300 range of weapons ( 600 + Tel's with 2400 ready to fire missiles) it becomes quite obvious that based on admitted weapon deployments we should consider Russia to hold the initiative in a nuclear war scenario. I am not even taking into account all the more secretive high tech weaponry that Russia has apparently managed to deploy without Western responses in kind.

Stellar





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join