Are the Russians more prepared for Nuclear war?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
There is an interesting thread on their new missile, the Bulava to be an SLBM. Does anyone ralize that the developement of new ballistic missiles violates international treaties?

I raise the question if Russia is more capable for Nuclear war? I would argue their Nuclear force is better prepared and has a greater survivability. As such the Russians are still the greatest threat to the free world.




posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
..And killing hundreds of thousands people around the globe by US doesn't violate anything, right... Free world ?.. Do you happen to mean Iraq ? It's now "free world", just look at it, pure democracy.. brought by who ? Yeah, you don't have to think twice to make your choice


In fact the greatest threat to the free world is an American government, in its present state. They did everything they could to prove this many times.

As for the question of this thread, yeah. Russia is the most prepared nation for any type of war, as it has almost always been. But unfortunately it is the US who abandoned to sign a vital international document, concerning the limiting of nuclear force. So..calling Russia a global threat is silly to say the least..


[edit on 13-12-2006 by Leevi]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi
..And killing thousands of people around the globe by US doesn't violate anything, right... Free world ?.. Do you happen to mean Iraq ? It's now "free world", just look at it, pure democracy.. brought by who ? Yeah, you don't have to think twice to make your choice


In fact the greatest threat to the free world is an American government, in its present state. They did everything they could to prove this many times.



[edit on 13-12-2006 by Leevi]


you are obviously a clueless kool aid drinker, please refrain from wasting valuable posting space.


Russia's Strategic Rocket forces are deterioting. I think this is probably an effort to maintain their nuclear forces.

They no longer rely on satellite early warning systems anymore and rely soley on ground based radar systems, which are also deteriorating.

I would say the world is no longer in any danger of a nuclear holocaust between superpowers. From terrorists?, possibly.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by XphilesPhan]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

you are obviously a clueless kool aid drinker, please refrain from wasting valuable posting space.


Sorry, forgot asking you, Mr.Wisdom...


[edit on 13-12-2006 by Leevi]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Perhaps Russia is, but who would they start war with? Certainly not the U.S.


I believe countries who have already shown a willingness to use such weapons against us, like Iran, Syria, and North Korea, should be our immediate concern IMO.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi

you are obviously a clueless kool aid drinker, please refrain from wasting valuable posting space.


Sorry, forgot asking you, Mr.Wisdom...

[edit on 13-12-2006 by Leevi]


Well, I would encourage you to come up with your own reasoning, not what you may have read from some leftist propaganda leaflet.


ape

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
haha russia is wasting its money, the US is developing or has already developed technology which will in time make ballistic milles obsolete, while doing so the US still has strategic nuclear missles which are just upgraded and SSBN's to ensure total destruction of an enemy. no country will ever have the webos to attack the US and declare war ever again IMO.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 13-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   


Well, I would encourage you to come up with your own reasoning, not what you may have read from some leftist propaganda leaflet.


If you call (or equalize) peoples' deaths to propaganda..I have nothing to prove you here..

There are no reasons, there are today's facts.

President Bush is no longer popular among the Americans, Rumsfeld is gone, leaving chaos in Iraq and they haven't got any other idea than to leave Iraq in that exact state for now. US is evidently helpless.
From the moment the US occupied Iraq, over 500000 peaceful Iraqi people died there. The motivation was to find a nuclear bomb.. Nothing was ever found. They just killed so many people..and never even felt sorry about that.



to ensure total destruction of an enemy. no country will ever have the webos to attack the US and declare war ever again IMO.


But US can easily, can't they ?
They showed this in perfect examples of Vietnam, Jugoslavia and Iraq.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by Leevi]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi
...President Bush is no longer popular among the Americans, Rumsfeld is gone, leaving chaos in Iraq and they haven't got any other idea than to leave Iraq in that exact state for now. US is evidently helpless.
From the moment the US occupied Iraq, over 500000 peaceful Iraqi people died there. The motivation was to find a nuclear bomb.. Nothing was ever found. They just killed so many people..and never even felt sorry about that.



I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about Russian's having Nukes. How does how Bush and Rumsfeld handled the Iraq war have anything to do with the original topic?



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
i woud like to comment, the russian forces are definately not deteriorating as much as Americans think, the russians have a great military, and if need be the military can be rejuvenated and brought up to date, which it actually is right now for a defensive war, maybe not an offensive one. Russia is the largest threat to the US right now, and that is exactly why the US is in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and is trying to trigger "color Revolutions" in former Soviet sattelites, which the russians have resisted, and are making great strides in that geopolitical war, right now the two countries are almost on equal footing...



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   


I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about Russian's having Nukes. How does how Bush and Rumsfeld handled the Iraq war have anything to do with the original topic?


My remarks don't have to do to the topic title itself but to the original post, where it was mentioned that Russia is violating international laws by making new types of ballistic missiles and is an actual threat to other nations.
Both statements are wrong and shouldn't be discussed simply because they are wrong. From my memory there hasn't been any cases when Russia attacked anybody in the world since the Soviet collapse so I don't understand why it has to be a threat. On the other side, the US is permanently seeking a possibility for a conflict around the globe, creates secret prisons all over Europe, legalizes torture against people who are claimed dangerous to the US and wants to close outer space from any country that doesn't meet their national interests. How cool that is, isn't it? These are just several facts to consider, but surely there are even more.



[edit on 13-12-2006 by Leevi]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by INc2006
Russia is the largest threat to the US right now, and that is exactly why the US is in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and is trying to trigger "color Revolutions" in former Soviet sattelites, which the russians have resisted, and are making great strides in that geopolitical war, right now the two countries are almost on equal footing...


The threat is in fact coming from the US, you know why? Because they dislike that such a big country like Russia controls its national resources on its own and that surely doesn't please America's national interests. American government and many European countries want to gain access to the Great National Resources of Russia, not giving anything equal in exchange. Can you believe that ? And that is exactly what happens when we talk about geopolitical "war". If Russia was a desert, nobody would need it. But it is very large and very rich, that's why many narrowminded persons of a (sometimes) high rank consider it a threat and are afraid of it. But luckily, Russia is not vicious and not disgusting as some other great countries are nowadays. Certainly it needs an adequate weapon to defend the national resources from any type of danger and Russia has such weapons. It should be considered absolutely normal, also taking into account the accumulation of a conflict potential on Earth. Who creates this potential ? You guess.

Sorry for offtopic but I needed to clarify some things.



[edit on 13-12-2006 by Leevi]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
haha russia is wasting its money, the US is developing or has already developed technology which will in time make ballistic milles obsolete, while doing so the US still has strategic nuclear missles which are just upgraded and SSBN's to ensure total destruction of an enemy. no country will ever have the webos to attack the US and declare war ever again IMO.


Except many non-state/para-state entities continue to do so. The US has been at 'war' ever since the 1990s.
Also I'm pretty convinced that even the US doesn't have the 'webos' to attack or declare war on Russia, for the very same reason.

XPhiles,
Any source on the Russians only depending on grounds radar and not military satellites?



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by INc2006
right now the two countries are almost on equal footing...


Can you explain? Last I checked, the only thing Russia has going for it at the moment is their natural resources...How is the US and Russia on equal footing?



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Not to mention we spend more on our military then russias economy brings in. Just a thought. Funny how Russias navy has deteriorated so fast. Most of all russias subs are rusting in harbor. That country has a huge mafia problem as well.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Leevi, What is it exactly you are clarifying?...that your in love with all things Russian, and have a great distaste for all things American?

What do Bush and Rumsfeld have to do with Russia's ability to survive a nuclear exchange?

And why in the world would you think we (America) would fire the first shot at them (Russia)?

You should read your history books...we defeated them once already...without a shot being fired (per se). Russia does not have the $$$ to maintain what it has and any new development that leads to production of any sort of new weapon system...will be a limited run, unless they can come up with customers for purchases.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
Not to mention we spend more on our military then russias economy brings in.


What does it mean ? Yes. It does mean that Russia has knowledge to
make even better military progress at a far better (read:cheap) price. Because of the KNOWLEDGE.


Just a thought. Funny how Russias navy has deteriorated so fast. Most of all russias subs are rusting in harbor.


Russia's latest subs are of high-end military technology which doesn't have analogues anywhere in the world.


That country has a huge mafia problem as well.


Mafia is not only in Russia, it exists everywhere. Accept that.
And by the way it was a problem of B.Eltzins 90's politics, not Putin's.
The situation is greatly improved since 90's, just for you to know.


[edit on 13-12-2006 by Leevi]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor

Originally posted by INc2006
right now the two countries are almost on equal footing...


Can you explain? Last I checked, the only thing Russia has going for it at the moment is their natural resources...How is the US and Russia on equal footing?


In nuclear survivability they are very much on equal terms to say the least..

And the bit about subs rusting in dry docks..
Well, they're testing loads of new hi-tech SLBMs.. granted some fail but most succeed.
All these cannot be tested from dry docks.
A quick look up of the testing timeline for that last decade or so would be very revealing.
Also notably the lack of strategic SSBN patrolling by the Russians throughout the 1990s all the way up to 2003(maybe 1 or 2 patrols annually in this period), has had a marked change since 2003. The patrols have drastically increased, possibly owing to the fact the the stigma since the Kursk disaster
has passed.

Even if second strike SSBN capability of the Russians may be lesser in quantity than that of the Americans,they make with their mobile land forces.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadbang
Leevi, What is it exactly you are clarifying?...that your in love with all things Russian, and have a great distaste for all things American?

What do Bush and Rumsfeld have to do with Russia's ability to survive a nuclear exchange?

And why in the world would you think we (America) would fire the first shot at them (Russia)?

You should read your history books...we defeated them once already...without a shot being fired (per se). Russia does not have the $$$ to maintain what it has and any new development that leads to production of any sort of new weapon system...will be a limited run, unless they can come up with customers for purchases.


Please read my posts attentively, I'm clarifying that Russia is no threat to anyone. I love American people but I just hate American government.

Where did I say that America wants to fire the first shot ? Please quote me.
I didn't mean that, for sure, but this information is too worrying, isn't it:



that is exactly why the US is in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and is trying to trigger "color Revolutions" in former Soviet sattelites


As for spending $$$ on everything, I made a point previously..This is all not about the money, it is all about knowledge. Knowledge rule the world, not money.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3


In nuclear survivability they are very much on equal terms to say the least..


I personally can't argue with military things as I just don't have any interest in the stuff. But I was just wondering what they meant. I though Inc meant maybe influence or something like that,





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join