Military Strength of Russia (and compared to other nations)

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

For anyone who believes Russia can conduct military operations in the modern era, you are sadly mistaken.

Based on what exactly? The fact that they claim to be weak?

Hmm how about their complete cock up of 2 military campaigns in a tiny province of theirs called Chechnya. I guess they stuffed that up to feign weakness as well, LMAO.



[edit on 10-10-2006 by rogue1]

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm how about their complete cock up of 2 military campaigns in a tiny province of theirs called Chechnya. I guess they stuffed that up to feign weakness as well, LMAO.

Korea,Vietnam,Afghanistan,Iraq to a name suggest that, using your logic, the US armed forces completely and absolutely can't get anything right. The Russians are trying to fighting a well funded , western backed, insurgency and knowing that they have chosen not to level the country in the effort to kill these few mercs. They have decided that it's not in their interest to blow the crap out of a country ( like the USA in Iraq) just to try kill a few people who do not represent Chechnya on the whole.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Korea,Vietnam,Afghanistan,Iraq to a name suggest that, using your logic, the US armed forces completely and absolutely can't get anything right. The Russians are trying to fighting a well funded , western backed, insurgency and knowing that they have chosen not to level the country in the effort to kill these few mercs. They have decided that it's not in their interest to blow the crap out of a country ( like the USA in Iraq) just to try kill a few people who do not represent Chechnya on the whole.

Stellar

All I think these examples show is that no professional army, be it the US, Russia, China, anyone, is capable of fighting in an asymetrical environment. The US military is set up to fight multi-front wars anywhere in the world and win the conventional battle. If Iraq and Afghanistan were conventional fronts, we wouldnt still be there, much like if Chechnya were a conventional war, Russia would probably have slaughtered them in a month. Thats all I have to say about that.

Originally posted by ludaChris

Originally posted by StellarX
Korea,Vietnam,Afghanistan,Iraq to a name suggest that, using your logic, the US armed forces completely and absolutely can't get anything right. The Russians are trying to fighting a well funded , western backed, insurgency and knowing that they have chosen not to level the country in the effort to kill these few mercs. They have decided that it's not in their interest to blow the crap out of a country ( like the USA in Iraq) just to try kill a few people who do not represent Chechnya on the whole.

Stellar

All I think these examples show is that no professional army, be it the US, Russia, China, anyone, is capable of fighting in an asymetrical environment. The US military is set up to fight multi-front wars anywhere in the world and win the conventional battle. If Iraq and Afghanistan were conventional fronts, we wouldnt still be there, much like if Chechnya were a conventional war, Russia would probably have slaughtered them in a month. Thats all I have to say about that.

simpe and straight... agreed.

Originally posted by Alex Dude
Are you suggesting that the Russians have developed or are developing on a Weather Control Device?

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.

Other than dissipating clouds using missiles filled with some chemical (forgot what it is).

That sorta thing is used commercially by very many American states and countries for a few decades now and it's nowhere near the cutting edge of weather manipulation.

And anyway, aren't the Americans supposed to have that Superweapon? ( from Red Alert II

)

Well that's the upside down reality portrayed in the popular media. The sad reality seems to be that the Russians hold most of the aces in strategic weaponry but luckily they seem satisfied in using it to slowly disarm America instead of the alternatives...

I'm pretty confident that i can prove this to most anyone who is willing to consider that such things are possible at all; i can't work with rest but that's hardly my fault.

Stellar

Originally posted by ludaChris
All I think these examples show is that no professional army, be it the US, Russia, China, anyone, is capable of fighting in an asymetrical environment.

While i understand exactly where you come from i am not sure that the USA even tried to win those conflicts so it's not like i want to suggest that the USA could not have succeeded if they fought to win instead of to destroy the countries for other reasons.

The US military is set up to fight multi-front wars anywhere in the world and win the conventional battle.

Multi front wars against third world nations who could probably not stand up to American conventional forces whatever state they where in. It's all very confusing when you train to fight a USSR style enemy in theory but end up choosing to fight lesser enemies with the wrong doctrine and ever worse reasoning.

If Iraq and Afghanistan were conventional fronts, we wouldnt still be there, much like if Chechnya were a conventional war, Russia would probably have slaughtered them in a month. Thats all I have to say about that.

Well i intended to agree with all you said but my fingers ran away with me so thanks for the good summary.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by ludaChris
All I think these examples show is that no professional army, be it the US, Russia, China, anyone, is capable of fighting in an asymetrical environment.

While i understand exactly where you come from i am not sure that the USA even tried to win those conflicts so it's not like i want to suggest that the USA could not have succeeded if they fought to win instead of to destroy the countries for other reasons.

The US military is set up to fight multi-front wars anywhere in the world and win the conventional battle.

Multi front wars against third world nations who could probably not stand up to American conventional forces whatever state they where in. It's all very confusing when you train to fight a USSR style enemy in theory but end up choosing to fight lesser enemies with the wrong doctrine and ever worse reasoning.

If Iraq and Afghanistan were conventional fronts, we wouldnt still be there, much like if Chechnya were a conventional war, Russia would probably have slaughtered them in a month. Thats all I have to say about that.

Well i intended to agree with all you said but my fingers ran away with me so thanks for the good summary.

Stellar

i will have to disagree with you, you see you are turning to bashing the american military, which i would not support, you see i cannot possibly say that the US military is a bad military, or a weak military, my argument was that the russian military is strong, not that the US military is weak, therefore i have to say i disagree with you. botht the US and russian militaries are impressive respectively... in a conventional battle both armies would fare very well and i will not go into saying on is better than the other...

Originally posted by Number23
And more nonsense. It was America that discovered EMP in the 50's. You think 50+ years later they might have hardened their equipment to resist EMP? Well they have, a LONG TIME AGO.

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.

And gee, I'm sure NO ONE in the Pentagon has ever given a moment's thought to protecting our space based surveillance and GPS equipment from electronic attack.

Not really as there is just too many things that needs doing with the limited funds they have available:

But analysts, executives and even officials in the Pentagon have criticized the Air Force, arguing that the service is talking a good game but falling short on execution — largely for lack of budget.
One veteran space industry executive expressed shock at how limited the debate has been about the need to better secure U.S. spacecraft.
The reason, executives and analysts said, is that such safeguards are complicated and expensive, and become targets when programs go over budget or fall behind schedule.
One source said the Pentagon is so thirsty for more bandwidth to handle burgeoning communications demands that it has been short-changing security, which consumes bandwidth.
“It’s a tradeoff,” said one industry source. “And so far, the pressure has been for capacity over security.”
Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, said the Air Force is making poor investment choices not only in space, but also in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance programs.
“The U.S. Air Force’s ambitious plan for fielding orbital and airborne reconnaissance systems has begun to come unhinged in the budget process from Space Radar, to missile warning to future radar planes, the whole mission area seems to be melting down,” Thompson said.

www.defensenews.com...

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

Stellar

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.
Stellar

They're not hardened because the possibility of such an attack on the continental U.S. is quite low. Even if the attack did occur, by then, it'd be probably too late.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
They're not hardened because the possibility of such an attack on the continental U.S. is quite low. Even if the attack did occur, by then, it'd be probably too late.

So basically the USA never prepared to win a nuclear war and just assumed that no one would start it based on the hopes that they would not accept the casualties such a war would entail? Do you realise that the USSR( and then the RF kept right on doing so) has since 1960 been building the infrastructure that fighting and winning such a war would require while the USA did apparently very little in return? Do you realise that the combination of a national anti ballistic missile system, a massive civil defense and industrial hardening campaign and then their massive nuclear and conventional forces.

If the USA then never prepared to fight the USSR ( the USSR was always going to go nuclear in a war with the USA/NATO) what was all that military spending about? How can a government which can not go to war avoid being blackmailed by one that can not only fight it but probably win it? Is this not the most logical reason for explaining why the USA has been in decline since the mid 70's?

Stellar

Russia is still a superpower and its armed forces are very capable, the total armed forces are smaller in number than America but the Russians do have 20 million reservists they can call on. And as mentioned elsewhere the Russian's are capable of absorbing massive losses. Within weeks of Barbarosa the Germans had captured millions of Russian's and millions were lost through the war years but on ending the war in Europe the Russian's had 12.5 million combatents.

And the problem of having your forces relying on ultra technology is that can you replace your losses quick enough. The days of building liberty ships have long gone, so for any modern armed forces is not the capability of your enemy thats an issue but have you got enough resources to finish the job succesfully. I would say on a war of atrition between the USA-Russia, then Russia would probably be the winner. What did Stalin say, our greatest resource is human life. Thats how they beat the Germans, they could afford to lose millions but the Germans couldnt.

Originally posted by INc2006
i will have to disagree with you,

You do not have to agree with me and especially not if you actually have a reason beside defending your current untested views!

you see you are turning to bashing the american military, which i would not support,

The American military has in the last century been a force used almost exclusively for the oppression of freedom and general destruction of those who want to make the world a better place. I have still to find more than a few instances in which it actually served the interest of humanity as one would expect from a country who so frequently talks the talks.

you see i cannot possibly say that the US military is a bad military, or a weak military,

I can and i did and what you should do is ask why i said what i did. Can you explain what happened in the second world war, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq ( OIF) and Afghanistan we might have something to talk about as those instances all show a military that is learning but very slowly.

my argument was that the russian military is strong, not that the US military is weak, therefore i have to say i disagree with you.

I know what you said and i just happen to disagree.

botht the US and russian militaries are impressive respectively...

The US armed forces is not even very impressive when it comes to winning wars against third world nations so I'm not convinced it had much of a chance against the USSR.

in a conventional battle both armies would fare very well and i will not go into saying on is better than the other...

Your position is already better informed than most and if your as open minded as i suspect i think you will in time come to believe much of what i have.

Good luck and i am always ready to explain my point of view in as much detail as you might require

Stellar

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm how about their complete cock up of 2 military campaigns in a tiny province of theirs called Chechnya. I guess they stuffed that up to feign weakness as well, LMAO.

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

Originally posted by StellarX
While i understand exactly where you come from i am not sure that the USA even tried to win those conflicts so it's not like i want to suggest that the USA could not have succeeded if they fought to win instead of to destroy the countries for other reasons.

Multi front wars against third world nations who could probably not stand up to American conventional forces whatever state they where in. It's all very confusing when you train to fight a USSR style enemy in theory but end up choosing to fight lesser enemies with the wrong doctrine and ever worse reasoning.

Well i intended to agree with all you said but my fingers ran away with me so thanks for the good summary.

Stellar

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

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. 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

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.

Dude stop bashing the American military.

You state what has the USA done with "talk the Talk"

Well we defended Korea from Russian and Chinese started war.

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

The US supported South Korea. The right choice.

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

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.

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

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

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

You are proud of your country, but don't bring my country down in the process. Because by linking stories. I can shoot back the 25 million people in the Soviet Union killed by Stalin. 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.


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

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

Defeating an insurgency can be done(while a very delicate and time consuming process). Communist insurgents were defeated in Greece, the Brits and Aussies defeated insurgents in Maylaysia in that infamous jungle fighting they both became famous for. It can be done!!! You also seem to forget that the conflicts you cite were very political. Much care had to be taken in waging each of the campaigns, it wasnt so simple as to just go in and flatten everything in sight. Read this from the US Army War College, makes for a good read.

Fighting Insurgencies- No Shortcuts to Success

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
They're not hardened because the possibility of such an attack on the continental U.S. is quite low. Even if the attack did occur, by then, it'd be probably too late.

So basically the USA never prepared to win a nuclear war and just assumed that no one would start it based on the hopes that they would not accept the casualties such a war would entail?

It wouldn't really matter if the USSr won or not ( not that there are any winners ) the rest of the world would be disguted at both powers. So what could the USSR hope to gain other than a destroyed country ?

If the USA then never prepared to fight the USSR ( the USSR was always going to go nuclear in a war with the USA/NATO) what was all that military spending about?

They were always going to go nuclear were they ( you must hvae access to top secret archives to be so confident LMAO ). So if the USSR was always going to go nuclear why waist the money keeping a vast standing army which was ment to beat NATO coventionally. You logic is completely warped.

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm how about their complete cock up of 2 military campaigns in a tiny province of theirs called Chechnya. I guess they stuffed that up to feign weakness as well, LMAO.

Korea,Vietnam,Afghanistan,Iraq to a name suggest that, using your logic, the US armed forces completely and absolutely can't get anything right. The Russians are trying to fighting a well funded , western backed, insurgency and knowing that they have chosen not to level the country in the effort to kill these few mercs. They have decided that it's not in their interest to blow the crap out of a country ( like the USA in Iraq) just to try kill a few people who do not represent Chechnya on the whole.

Stellar

This has nothimg to do with the US, I was showing how the Russians had alot of trouble fighting a small skirmish inside their own country against a small insurgency,
BTW, you should really do some more reading about both Chechan Wars because your ignorance on the subject has been laid bare. The Russians did bomb the crap out of Chehcnya including levelling the capital city of Grozny killing thousands of civilians. After having their ass kicked they decided to resort to their WW2 tactics of mass bombardment - Kill 'em 'all.

Grozny before the War



Grozny after the War

[edit on 16-10-2006 by rogue1]

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Alex Dude
Are you suggesting that the Russians have developed or are developing on a Weather Control Device?

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.

LOl any credibility you may have had has disappeared with tyhis paragraph. So the Russians somehow sank a submerged submarine using some type of weather control device. Thats gotta be some of the biggest load of BS I've ever heard. The Thresher wsa sunk when the HTP in one of the torpedo engins exploeded causing catastrophic flooding.

Originally posted by sbob
Dude stop bashing the American military.

You state what has the USA done with "talk the Talk"

Well we defended Korea from Russian and Chinese started war.

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

The US supported South Korea. The right choice.

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

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.

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

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

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

You are proud of your country, but don't bring my country down in the process. Because by linking stories. I can shoot back the 25 million people in the Soviet Union killed by Stalin. 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.


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

well look the US as i have said many times over, has not always and never will be the "saint" that always sides with the right group, the US has sided with Oman, with Sadam, and with many other countries that only followed the US but never actually followed democracy. as for the 25mil dead from Stalin, well at least he industrialised russia, one of the wonders of the 20th century, see it's very sad to see 25million dead, but 25mil died in order to industrialize and defend the country. now lets say Russia was not industrialized, who do you think would have controlled the world now the UN and the US and all the others or just Nazi Germany. the internet is just a communication device, and i know it is credited that the US military came up with it, but it can have just as easily been in done in the Soviet Union as well. btw when the US first built the Atomic bomb they had to first of all deliver them by bombers not by missles, which made them vulnerable to AA fire, also the russians could have easily swarmed France and Great Britain with troops and took over Western Europe and all thier empires, valuable allies to the Americans, so once you look at it the US could not have falttened russia.