Are the Russians more prepared for Nuclear war?

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Say's the person who celebrates the starf of a new year by getting completely wasted.


Im a college student. What more do you want me to say? I blame it on the peer pressure



When one does research you normally read things and when you engage in discussion with ignorant vain people sometimes such source material can give them a moments pause before they indulge in more character attacks...
I am sure there are at least a few people who actually appreciate the fact that they investigate my claims as thoroughly as they may be interested to.


But subjecting these ppl to your views by literally forcing them to believe it or else they be called ignorant is appreciated by these ppl? If anything that makes you very hypocritical.


I am most certainly not here to 'prove' 'others' ( you , i presume) wrong as much as i am here to introduce some new material into the discussion. If you think i am here to prove you, and not your current beliefs, inaccurate you need to grow up as i would not care about your opinions if you did not attempt to post them as facts. This is not about you or me but about establishing based on the best information we have available to us.


By twisting the facts to form your opinion as if it is fact and nothing but! Nice one buddy.



I only expect those who want to engage in discussion to familiarize themselves with the source material. If the discussion does not interest you don't bother but if it does and you want to defend a certain point of view you simply must understand some of the material in question.


And thats fine. But dont force your views upon other ppl who dont agree with them by calling them ignorant. Its very childish. Just thought Id throw that out there for future reference.



Thanks for the advice....

Its only good advice if you take it.


Why do you insist on making this vapid propaganda announcement? If you believe that to be true say that is your opinion but do not come here and tell us 'how it is' while laughing at anyone who attempts disagreement by employing factual material disputing your 'perceptions'.


So the US being lone top dog for the past ohh 15 years is propaganda? Get real.



I don't think the US have caught up and if they have it does not seem that they have been able to employ these new technologies to ward off environmental warfair as practiced by Russia.


Lets get down to brass tacts here. Did you yourself personally work for the USSR? No! More then likely you didnt. You know what your problem is? Your problem is you are a very gullible person who believes anything he reads on the net. So with the same logic applied, the US must have a secret fleet of intergalatic space ships then.


"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.


Did I already mention that the US has a fleet of intergalatic space ships with weather control devices????
And thats a joke for some of you ppl who dont have a sense a humor.



That is a smart thing to do so why do you believe them when they keep pronouncing to western audiences that the USSR fell and that they are now a third world state posing no threat to anyone? Do you often seem them acting the the militaristic US ways?


But it did fall. It spent itself into a collapse. The threat of the USSR is long gone.


And if you believe this you are as misinformed , or plain ignorant, as one can be about these issues.
I don't forgive ignorance when it's chosen over the reality that even a little bit of research would expose.


Right before the collapse of the USSR, the ruskies lied about their current economic state saying that it was on par, or about to surpass the americans when in reality everything was going crummy in the russian economy. This, the year before it collapsed. Face it, russia was full of mass deception. Now this doesnt mean russia wasnt powerful in its own right, because it clearly was. But russia wasnt as powerful as they tryed to make it seem they were.
One example out of many was stories about the USSR haveing a new long-range bomber powered by atomic engines called the "bounder". America, in response to this news, was actually developing a nuclear powered long range bomber itself. But later back in 1958, it was later found out to be filled with Soviet mis- and dis-information the US discovered the russians had no such bomber that was in the works with those capabilities. It was just soviet propaganda. Which became the USSRs best weapon against america. Deception. Thats what the USSR was all about, smoke and mirrors.

[edit on 043131p://2701pm by semperfoo]




posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Personally, I attended the Seattle Symphony at Benaroya Hall on New Year's, and there was much drinking to be had. Simply, alcohol consumption is a cultural tradition in many areas of the world, for New Year's, and I'd ask you not to harp on Semper for such a thing. Personal attacks, especially blind ones, don't suit you, Stellar. I mean that;you are one of the few on these forums to put up clear, concise arguments.

[Brief question however, Stellar, with what method do you gauge the United States is behind Russia militarilly, let alone that we must catch up? We exceed in conventional warfare, though I will cede to you that Russia has much better counter-insurgency tactics. (If much more .. explosive, ones, at that.)]

To be fair, Semper, StellarX supports his arguments consistently with evidence. Therefore, no matter how invalid we might find what he says, he is not blithly mouthing off, nor producing facts out of nothing, nor is he making his opinion fact such as Ape. While I agree 'ignorance' is a poor battlecry for him, it does suit the majority of his competition. [Ape.]

More to Ape: Simply because Russia does not use, or practice, or deploy its triad much does not mean it's non-existant, merely that it doesn't get out much. Regardless of what that lack of practice means, the fact remains it is operational.

Russia is a regional superpower, I'll admit, though I don't think there are any existing concrete definitions for such a thing. However, StellarX, you and I must agree that to project that power, and to maintain any power it does actually decide to project, is in question. It is much more limited than the United State's capability, and of [very few] other countries.

I'd enjoy seeing what Russia and the United States could do with more-close cooperation, given that what Russia excels at militarily is, right now, what the United States needs, and the U.S., meanwhile, could open a great many economic and political venues for the relatively struggling nation.

And I'd enjoy if all of you here, who are reading this debate, or within it, read The Economist's latest report on Russian domestic policies. It's a large article, quite informative.

Regards--


Hunter


ape

posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   

by iblis
More to Ape: Simply because Russia does not use, or practice, or deploy its triad much does not mean it's non-existant, merely that it doesn't get out much. Regardless of what that lack of practice means, the fact remains it is operational.





he is not blithly mouthing off, nor producing facts out of nothing, nor is he making his opinion >fact such as Ape



what is your exact beef? you sir are taking every chance you can get to throw a left hook and take shots at me, take a good look at the definition of a superpower russia does not project force something that is key for any superpower, they only project defense and home protection. take a good look at the US on the other hand, the SSBN patrols and development, the complete air superiority along with strong naval capability currently the strongest in the world. when you dont deploy ssbns on patrol which is what russia did in 2002 that means only 1 thing, a part of the triad is not functioning and thats usually do to funding, this is a fact dont attempt to take me down a notch because I point it out. do you realise how insignificant 2 patrols a year are? thats basically saying you win.


secondly take a good look at the sources stellar posts, pure FANTASY and most of them are outdated, I see him posting stuff from 1997, from 1987 before the USSR collpased totally ignoring reality. He he even went as for to start posting crap from prison planet and referencing alex jones, when i contested saying alex jones is considered a dumbass in the states he called me an ignorant misinformed fool who doesn't know a damn thing about my own country, and that alex jones is good for me. I will come to my own conclusions, the fact you even think he is legit is scary.

stellar mouths off far more than anyone I have ever encountered and far more than myself, just because he does it in a different fashion doesn't it's not happening, I pick it up very well the man is smug as all hell and he is arrogant. his approach with semper is a prime example of this.

[edit on 5-1-2007 by ape]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
It's not that I have an issue with you, as a person Ape, but that I do not wish to be associated with you as a fellow American, as a fellow poster, and that I'd rather people not think of you as a representation of the American public -- As this is an international forums. I believe you do not do justice to our country through your posts, and that your deliberate and pointed attacks to other nations does not portray us as I'd like. While I'm glad you can make such consistent, lengthy posts opposing forum members you draw incorrect conclusions, and that you can add to topics with your insight, it tends to lead to bad places. So, I value you, as a fellow forum-goer and as a person, though as far as being related to you, and having you, being the most vocal of us, be seen as the representation of the U.S. on this board -- I do not think I can afford that.

Further, yes. Russia is no longer, by definition, a Superpower. I never contested that. --Just as I stated in-question to Stellar within my last post. However, missiles do not have to be 'projected', perse, anywhere. ICBM's have a pretty good operational range. If you would trust such an ignorant opinion as mine. [Sarcasm. Bad, but still sarcasm.]

As for complete naval superiority, that is to be questioned as we've yet, in recent times, to go against a modern power. Going after third-world countries with poor training, with inadequete equipment which are only -backed- by modern powers, does not qualify.
Also, as stated, my argument was never about Superpower capacity. Simply saying their nuclear triad is capable, and active, if hardly used, practiced, or observed. Just because we've not tested a nuclear military device in sometime, doesn't mean nuclear weapons no longer work. Am I correct in this?


Stellar does come across with the occassional questionable evidence -- Though not every subject is consistently updated with new and exciting information. You fight with the army you have, not with the army you want.


Stellar does seem arrogant to me, and whether or not that is justified, the reason I .. am more vocal towards you, is that you are on the same theoretical 'side', as I am, and that perhaps because you express your opinion less eloquently, it seems harsher. It seems worse-off than his.

But, I suppose when you think you're on the winning side, everyone is a little arrogant. ;]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Russia makes good aircraft, but. . .
US pilots get way more hours in flight time--one of the more important items in creating trained pilots. I don't think there's any doubt to Russia's lack of training pilots in the air sufficiently.


Russia is way more prepared and trained for nuclear war.

Nuclear war = sitting in the cold dark with sh** to do. . .

Sorry low blow--its more of a joke on nuclear preparation.

By my own definition, I was training for nuclear war after college.


ape

posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
.


As for complete naval superiority, that is to be questioned as we've yet, in recent times, to go against a modern power. Going after third-world countries with poor training, with inadequete equipment which are only -backed- by modern powers, does not qualify.


there are plenty of powers out there none of which want a piece of the US navy, most of them are allied with the US navy and the one who are not fear the US navy and would not dare to engage it in the open sea. I'm not being bias here but I have done my homework on the US navy, grade A war machine.

here is some basic infor to start out with

US
en.wikipedia.org...

russia
en.wikipedia.org...

no comparison.

airforce

US
en.wikipedia.org...

russia
en.wikipedia.org...

what exactly have i posted that was incorrect? I try to be as accurate as I can, im not sitting here saying the US is invincible im saying we are not as weak as people harp on these forums.




It's not that I have an issue with you, as a person Ape, but that I do not wish to be associated with you as a fellow American, as a fellow poster, and that I'd rather people not think of you as a representation of the American public -- As this is an international forums. I believe you do not do justice to our country through your posts, and that your deliberate and pointed attacks to other nations does not portray us as I'd like


this means nothing to me so go ahead and while you're at it do me a favor and ignore me, I can't please everybody and I could care less if this is an international forum as 75% of the regged memebers here are either anti american foreigners or anti-american American liberals. I dont attack anyone from another nation unless they attack my country first.



[edit on 5-1-2007 by ape]

[edit on 5-1-2007 by ape]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Ha! Meant to type airforce.
Complete air superiority is different than taking medium to heavy losses, you must also factor in ground and naval defenses watching the sky.

As sure as I am that you think what I said means nothing to you, somehow gets at me, it's really your lost. Someone who continues to represent our country terribly, and insult others is only harming themselves. Not listening to an attempted mediator is what gets people in trouble.

Further, what supporters do you have, Ape? Will anyone post here, on this forum, and say that support the majority of what Ape says? And, saying that the United States is not superior in all things, which it isn't, is not attacking the country, merely stating it is not perfection. So if someone says they have a superior doodad or doohicky, it may very well be truth. We can't be for-certain, given nothing modern has ever been tested one vs. one in a Live Combat Situation.

As for those of other countries, I can't see why they wouldn't stand up against the United States on these forums. If our representatives, for instance, yourself, attack and put down others, they have no other recourse but to adamanatly, to the point of silliness, defend their own. Besides this, we have not exactly been the friendly neighbors so many of us wish we were in the past several years.

For the record, in respect to the topic, I believe if Russia had remained as it once was, with high-standards overall for training, and servicing their nuclear arsenal, than they might be equal or superior to the United States.
However, given the degeneration of the system, lowered standards, and budgetary constraints -- Also, that they lost such an enormous amounts of early-warning radars to the breaking satellite states in '91 -- I can imagine that the United States, with its eye on China, Russia for mistaken launches, and North Korea for an intentional launch, maintains and is currently better-servicing their nuclear forces, and therefore, is superior in preparation.

The nuclear aftermath, I imagine, Russia is much-more prepared for. In the event of a true nuclear war, the U.S.A. would have to survive with massive casualties, complete loss of media and communications - [Satellites] - a much lower quality of living and disorganized social and political system.

Russia has, unfortunately, dealt with many of the potential consequences of nuclear war for awhile now. Communications is not as wide-spread as it once was -- [Electronic communic. to that point] -- there have been rising death-rates thanks to rampant alcoholism, nicotine and drug abuse, and the quality of living, outside of central, political Russia, in my experience has been terrible. God knows going to an airport by Archangel was frightening. [Armed guards being bribed, corroded runway .. bad times.]



posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Cut ape some slack here. Hes right about this forum being full of anti-american rhetoric. Lets take into account that there are some ppl who are proud americans such as myself and ape who particularily dont take kind to ppl who constantly belittle our nation. Especially from ppl who dont live here.

America has TON'S of problems. No doubt. But show me a country that doesnt.

Talking about america on this forum is a hot topic. Notice how atleast 90% of the threads pertaning to America usually have the words collapse and decline somwhere mixed in it... America is the most widely critisied country on the face of the earth. Why sit here and let ppl spread misinfo about our country that isnt true? Something about Denying ignorance? I dont think ape is any more patriotic then the next american, british, chinese or indian and many other nationalities who happen to be members currently on this forum. He just gets critisied because he is an american who he stands up for his beliefs. Stop the stereotyping ppl. Thats whats wrong with this forum.

Just a few days ago we had this indian on here saying that the indians do the job better then the americans do and that that was one of the reasons why america was outsourcing jobs to india! Blasphemy!

Anyways take it easy peeps. We're all on the same side.


ape

posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   
i dont know what this guys issue is semper.



posted by iblis
As sure as I am that you think what I said means nothing to you, somehow gets at me, it's really your lost.


come on man, obviously I was referencing your personal opinion about me, if you have anything informative to post which I have yet to see I highly doubt it would be a loss to me.




Further, what supporters do you have, Ape? Will anyone post here, on this forum, and say that support the majority of what Ape says? And, saying that the United States is not superior in all things, which it isn't, is not attacking the country, merely stating it is not perfection. So if someone says they have a superior doodad or doohicky, it may very well be truth. We can't be for-certain, given nothing modern has ever been tested one vs. one in a Live Combat Situation.


alot of US equipment is battle tested which is why it's in constant demand, big time laugh.

I dont post on this website to gain support, I get plenty of that from my loving family who I support by working hard and paying my dues, I sit here and visit this site which i enjoy ( especially the informative posters they know who they are ) and i come across posts which are totally bias towards US capabilities, then another and another and another, next thing I know I have a man telling me I dont know anything about the country I live in and that im ignorant and foolish and misinformed, oh and also that my country will collapse and my family will be put into slavery by the chinese. I will respond accordingly to this kind of crap.

i never stated before that US equipment is invincible, but it's damn good.



As for those of other countries, I can't see why they wouldn't stand up >against the United States on these forums. If our representatives, for instance, yourself, attack and put down others, they have no other recourse but to adamanatly, to the point of silliness, defend their own. Besides this, we have not exactly been the friendly neighbors so many of us wish we were in the past several years


who exactly am I putting down that didn't totally put me down and insult me in a rather misinformed and stale fashion?? not to mention the constant shots taken at my country that is not adressed enough on here, I will continue to respond accordingly.

[edit on 5-1-2007 by ape]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 04:07 AM
link   


the ruskies lied about their current economic state saying that it was on par, or about to surpass the americans


from where did you get this from semper, gorbachev in 1990 said USSR needs AID and is weakening




One example out of many was stories about the USSR haveing a new long-range bomber powered by atomic engines called the "bounder"
America, in response to this news, was actually developing a nuclear powered long range bomber itself. But later back in 1958, it was later found out to be filled with Soviet mis- and dis-information the US discovered the russians had no such bomber that was in the works with those capabilities. It was just soviet propaganda.


ussr never said anything and yes there was a nuclear powered aircraft
but created high amt of radioactive pollution so it never entered service




Here's Soviet M-30-1 nuclear jet bomber.

By "nuclear" I mean not that it has nuclear bombs on board (surely, it has them, but that is not the matter), I mean it has NUCLEAR JET ENGINE.

Output of this engine was tremendous, allowing reaching hypersonic speeds (but shielding in 1950ies wasn't nearly as good to allow hypersonic cruise flights). But it had also TREMENDOUS radiation pollution.

It was succesfully tested and constructed in 1950ies, but never entered service because of VERY high radiation pollution.
www.technocracy.ca...



you could find some info on these on russian websites:

www.narod.ru
www.xakep.ru

and keldyash centre also ....



[edit on 6-1-2007 by vK_man]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
Personally, I attended the Seattle Symphony at Benaroya Hall on New Year's, and there was much drinking to be had. Simply, alcohol consumption is a cultural tradition in many areas of the world, for New Year's, and I'd ask you not to harp on Semper for such a thing.


I did 'harp' on him due to that but because he seemed to very proud of being able to excuse himself based on his own overindulgence... I could not care less if he drank or not and it would certainly not have undermined his arguments any more than objective reality already does.. It has been said that Churchill were never entirely sober for the duration of the second world war so it's not drinking or not drinking that bothers me...


Personal attacks, especially blind ones, don't suit you, Stellar.


I have thrown mud with the best of them and if ATS allowed me to indulge myself semper would probably have gained the 'playground' respect he clearly does not have for me. Don't assume that my activities on ATS reflects what type of persistent and accurate insult i am capable of showering on deserving parties... Unlike ape and semper i could never get away with such blatant abuse on ATS so for the sake of enlightening ( well i like to believe that! ) a few interested parties i am doing my best not to call people what they deserve to be.



I mean that;you are one of the few on these forums to put up clear, concise arguments.


What does the volume or intensity of the insult have to do with the 'facts' or 'objective reality' in your opinion? Do you think i believe semper or ape are 'wrong' about their beliefs because they choose to defend them by the most ifantalie means possible? I can actually separate the insult from the fact but i must that your not wrong when you use it as a general standard to discover which idea or fact might have more to do with reality.


[Brief question however, Stellar, with what method do you gauge the United States is behind Russia militarilly, let alone that we must catch up?

The fast declining American economic situation as well as the active geophysical warfare campaign being waged against the US and allies.


"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


The fact that the US can not longer even defend it's own skies from being actively manipulated should give one a giant 'heads up' that there are powers so overwhelmingly superior that the US lacks the means to prevent them from slowly undermining the US way of life. The Russian active ABM defense network numbers thousands of missiles ready to fire as well as their active civil defense networks as well as their clear ability to track ICBM's in flight ( with DEW type weaponry) shows that there seems to be few strategic cards the US can play hence their numerous invasions and political coups all over the world the last few decades.

There are a few dozen other reasons but those probably sums up the situation best.


We exceed in conventional warfare, though I will cede to you that Russia has much better counter-insurgency tactics. (If much more .. explosive, ones, at that.)]


How does the US exceed Russian capabilities if both current armed forces could be massed and transferred to a European battlefield of your choice? What about the equipment levels and employment of various technologies suggest to you that the US has a clear superiority?


To be fair, Semper, StellarX supports his arguments consistently with evidence. Therefore, no matter how invalid we might find what he says, he is not blithly mouthing off,


I would like to mouth off a great deal more but clearly the mods only allow certain parties to indulge in such tantrums so here i am stuck to having to employ actual facts.
All these tens of thousands of hours worth of research when i could have just relied on semper/ape's tactics!
The world is such a unfair place!



nor producing facts out of nothing, nor is he making his opinion fact such as Ape. While I agree 'ignorance' is a poor battlecry for him, it does suit the majority of his competition. [Ape.]


If only you knew what i would call him assuming the mods never read my posts with such a critical eye.
I occasionally do over indulge ,in-the-heat-of-the-moment, and suggest certain things as more true/factual than i really have the means to prove but i have freely admitted this in the past and i do not mind having this pointed out to me when others believe that it detracts from what i believe to be true...


More to Ape: Simply because Russia does not use, or practice, or deploy its triad much does not mean it's non-existant, merely that it doesn't get out much. Regardless of what that lack of practice means, the fact remains it is operational.


Ape assumes that a nuclear war will break out without tensions and that there will be no time for the Russians to deploy their SSBN's probably forgetting that such large scale preparations are hard to hide and that Russian SSBN's can mostly target the continental USA from their moorings and are protected by elaborate and extensive ABM defenses if they can not make it to sea in time.


Russia is a regional superpower, I'll admit, though I don't think there are any existing concrete definitions for such a thing. However, StellarX, you and I must agree that to project that power, and to maintain any power it does actually decide to project, is in question.


Luckily i can not make your mind up for you so all i ask is that you keep asking questions or go back and read what has been said... In my opinion ( which i think is easily sustained based on the facts in evidence) Russia never lost the strategic edge it gained in the late 70's and have built on it to this very day making them the dominant strategic power to this day.


It is much more limited than the United State's capability, and of [very few] other countries.


Based on what disagreements with the data i have so far employed on so many threads before this one?


I'd enjoy seeing what Russia and the United States could do with more-close cooperation, given that what Russia excels at militarily is, right now, what the United States needs, and the U.S., meanwhile, could open a great many economic and political venues for the relatively struggling nation.


The Russian population might be struggling ( well more than the US population at least) but i don't understand how people have managed to connect that reality so freely with a assumption of strategic inferiority? Did most people in the Roman empire live well or did only some? The damage done by the Rockefeller takeover of Russia ( installment of the communist leaders and so forth ) is still there to be observed to this day and there is no reason to suggest that Russia would not have done much better ( strategically or economically) under a Tsar and the like who were developing Russia at break neck pace at the time. The reason for the relative ease by which the communist takeover had much to do with the reform spirit that was already in the air...


And I'd enjoy if all of you here, who are reading this debate, or within it, read The Economist's latest report on Russian domestic policies. It's a large article, quite informative.
Regards--
Hunter


It's interesting that a country with so many problems has almost no external dept if it's foreign reserve currency holdings were to be employed towards paying off such. How can that be the case for a country that has such economic problems?

Stellar

[edit on 6-1-2007 by StellarX]


ape

posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   


I have thrown mud with the best of them and if ATS allowed me to indulge myself semper would probably have gained the 'playground' respect he clearly does not have for me. Don't assume that my activities on ATS reflects what type of persistent and accurate insult i am capable of showering on deserving parties... Unlike ape and semper i could never get away with such blatant abuse on ATS so for the sake of enlightening ( well i like to believe that! ) a few interested parties i am doing my best not to call people what they deserve to be.


I suggest it's time to get a companion because this above post tells me you spend too much stellar time alone, Must be exaughsting.

heh, anyone you have thrown 'mud' with has seriously clobbered you, you only come ahead in certain aspects of peak oil which I agree with, but other then that you should not consider yourself some kind of demigod here on ATS because in regards to weaponry alof of people have destroyed your arguments here, I am one of them which is why i'm ignored by you.

secondly what is keeping you from holding back? I would certainly love to say more things to you but I'm not because I can handle you in the fashion im doing now because you're simple, you over complicate every one of your posts and there are always massive inconsistancies and no foundation, also alot of bias which is what feeds the ignorant and misinformed and is what got you the little crowd you have now.





What does the volume or intensity of the insult have to do with the 'facts' or 'objective reality' in your opinion? Do you think i believe semper or ape are 'wrong' about their beliefs because they choose to defend them by the most ifantalie means possible? I can actually separate the insult from the fact but i must that your not wrong when you use it as a general standard to discover which idea or fact might have more to do with reality


you have yet to prove me wrong on these forums, I on the other hand have handled you in a fashion thats obviously acceptable to the mods and have had no problems responding to your ignorance and fantaSY. I'm pretty sure you have me ignored and thats funny because you insulted me far more than I you, I only refuted your ' facts' with actual facts, I guess this is how you engage in debate as you have yet to respond to any of my posts being how civil they actually are in response to someone like you.




The fast declining American economic situation as well as the active geophysical warfare campaign being waged against the US and allies.


our economic situation is fine and alot better then most countries in regards to debt GDP ratio, the EU surpassed the US in 06 but the numbers are being argued. someone from south africa has no ground to insult americans econmic situation as the AMERICAN PEOPLE are responsible and are the sole responsibility. we will pay any consequences for our actions when we elect our reps into office, its our fault if we elect a complete moron who does not have our interests only their own agenda, we can overcome this and will, fair tax is the first step.



How does the US exceed Russian capabilities if both current armed forces could be massed and transferred to a European battlefield of your choice? What about the equipment levels and employment of various technologies suggest to you that the US has a clear superiority


well here is some basic common information to start of with

US
en.wikipedia.org...

russia
en.wikipedia.org...

US
en.wikipedia.org...

russia
en.wikipedia.org...


there is no comparison, your biased opinion is exactly that, russia cannot fund at the levels the US does and funding is EVERYTHING.




Ape assumes that a nuclear war will break out without tensions and that there will be no time for the Russians to deploy their SSBN's probably forgetting that such large scale preparations are hard to hide and that Russian SSBN's can mostly target the continental USA from their moorings and are protected by elaborate and extensive ABM defenses if they can not make it to sea in time.


once again you manipulate what I actually said to gain some credability, what I said was russia does not have the funds to function aspects of the triad which is a key projection of force for any superpower. the whole reason the triad was brough up was because of force projection, you seem to think the US is playing catch up with russia when the US has the upperhand constantly and at anytime they dictate the moral responsibility behind a nuclear arsenal that can strike at any time because they operate the triad to the fullest.



I would like to mouth off a great deal more but clearly the mods only allow certain parties to indulge in such tantrums so here i am stuck to having to employ actual facts. All these tens of thousands of hours worth of research when i could have just relied on semper/ape's tactics! The world is such a unfair place


oh you mouth off quite enough, you're very dishonest and you have a sharp tounge, just because you're 'civil' about it and not as direct doesn't mean anything. about 75% of the information you post is nothing but garbage and bias opinion, many aside from myself have pointed this out to you. when you invest time to post information from prison planet that should be considered wasting only your own time, I always back up my opinion with facts you on the other hand constantly attempt to manipulate facts and this is a FACT.

enough said.

]

[edit on 6-1-2007 by ape]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   
With regards to Stellar, when he first came in here I consistently proved his sources wrong about Soviet era weaponry. His most often quoted source material was the " Soviet Military Power " reports by teh US DIA. These were constantly far overstated to justify the Reagan era defence budge. After the USSR fell it was discovered that none of these wonder weapons were produced or developed.
I provided many sources which disputed him, yet all he kept on doing was cutting and pasting the same quotes from some notepad document he has. I mean literally about 10 times, I just couldn't be bothered replying to him ( like talking to a war ) anymore, I notice in this post he is doing the same thing. He just regurgitates the same old BS hoping people will get bored - it works, he then claims the lack of another reply refuting the same things ( bearing in mind he has failed to rebuke any of the previous arguments disputing him ) as some sort of victory.
What is really funny about his behaviour is - as others have pointed out - he attempts to belittle people who disagree with him and then cries foul when they push back.

I remember a certain situation where h couldn't even distinguish between 2 completely different types of Russian SAM/ABM missiles. Even though I posted indisputable facts , the idiot still couldn't accept it. He jut resorted to his tactics of cutting and pasting his word document again - he really isn't as smart as some people think, LMAO. Some people are easily dazzled by BS.

Another interesting fact about stellar is, he is a South African who has never left South Africa, he gets all his " world experience " from the Internet.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by rogue1]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by vK_man


the ruskies lied about their current economic state saying that it was on par, or about to surpass the americans


from where did you get this from semper, gorbachev in 1990 said USSR needs AID and is weakening




One example out of many was stories about the USSR haveing a new long-range bomber powered by atomic engines called the "bounder"
America, in response to this news, was actually developing a nuclear powered long range bomber itself. But later back in 1958, it was later found out to be filled with Soviet mis- and dis-information the US discovered the russians had no such bomber that was in the works with those capabilities. It was just soviet propaganda.


ussr never said anything and yes there was a nuclear powered aircraft
but created high amt of radioactive pollution so it never entered service




Here's Soviet M-30-1 nuclear jet bomber.

By "nuclear" I mean not that it has nuclear bombs on board (surely, it has them, but that is not the matter), I mean it has NUCLEAR JET ENGINE.

Output of this engine was tremendous, allowing reaching hypersonic speeds (but shielding in 1950ies wasn't nearly as good to allow hypersonic cruise flights). But it had also TREMENDOUS radiation pollution.

It was succesfully tested and constructed in 1950ies, but never entered service because of VERY high radiation pollution.
www.technocracy.ca...



you could find some info on these on russian websites:

www.narod.ru
www.xakep.ru

and keldyash centre also ....



[edit on 6-1-2007 by vK_man]

Dude. Why did you send me free web hosting in russian?

I saw this on a show on the history channel. Im sure it has some research to back it up somewhere. Take it at face value if you want. I dont care.

I dunno man. America was developing a nuclear powered bomber, when the russians found out they wanted to make the americans think that they had a nuclear powered bomber that was operational while the americans were just in the prototype stage with theirs. I heard it was an M-50 Myasishchev (bounder) and there was a document that somehow (espionage?) got in american hands about its capabilities being BS. And the russians had a good poker face back in the day.



Looks cheesy.

Unlike the russians the americans actually suceeded in building a nuclear powered bomber. It was called the B-70 Valkyrie. But it had a radiation problem to every time this bird flew.


[edit on 123131p://3501pm by semperfoo]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
With stellar ive come to the conclusion that he thinks it was the US and not the USSR who collapsed back in the late 80s early 90s. He clearly thinks russia has america beat in every conventional category. Because America is playing 'catch up'.

Our full military spending this year is expected to be around $$$560,000,000,000 once you read between the lines.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
Unlike the russians the americans actually suceeded in building a nuclear powered bomber. It was called the B-70 Valkyrie. But it had a radiation problem to every time this bird flew.


The Americans or anyone else for that matter NEVER built a nuclear powered bomber. The ANP ( Air Nuclear Propulsion ) project was cancelled whn it became very clear that i wasn't possible to build a plane capable of carrying a reactor which would be of any utility.

The B-70 was a conventioanlly powered bomber, which evy book and website states quite clearly. I'm not sure why you think it was nuclear powered.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Well then I F'ed up. I was watching this show on the history channel a while back. America had a nuclear powered bomber but it did get canceled I think because the money just wasnt there for the project. I wouldnt qoute me on the aircraft though.

Since you seem to know your aircraft better then I do, do you know what aircraft it was that was nuclear powered?


EDIT:
disregard that. I didnt read all of your post. However they did say america did have a some aircraft that was nuclear powered. But it emmitted ALOT of radiation and was to hazerdous to the public.

[edit on 013131p://1101pm by semperfoo]



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
You will find this article interesting on the history of he USAF quest for a nuclear powered plane.


And that was that. Neither the United States, nor the Soviet Union, nor any other country was ever able to develop a true atomic-powered aircraft. But a nuclear plane of sorts did manage to fly This was the NB-36H test airplane, authorized along with the X-6 design back in 1951. Its original B-36H airframe had been extensively modified, most notably with a 12-ton shielded crew capsule in the nose, a 4-ton lead disc shield in the middle and a number of large air intake and exhaust holes to cool the reactor in the aft section. The reactor was a 1000-kilowatt design weighing 35,000 pounds and situated in a removable mounting in the aft bomb bay Its operation was observed from the crew capsule by closed circuit television. When the plane was not being flown, the reactor was kept in a specially prepared pit near the runway at Convair's Fort Worth, Texas, facility.

NB-36H flew with its radioactive cargo 47 times between 1955 and 1957, and, although it did not power the airplane, the reactor provided considerable data on the effects of radiation emitted during night. Flying alongside NB-36H on every one of its flights was a Boeing C-97 Stratocruiser transport carrying a platoon of armed Marines ready to parachute down and surround the test airplane in case it crashed. This certainly deserved hazardous duty pay. Pity the poor troops assigned to this outfit, jocularly dubbed the "glow-in-the-dark platoon." Fortunately there never was a crash, and the test plane was eventually decommissioned at Fort Worth in late 1957. After languishing as a hulk for many months, it was scrapped.

www.megazone.org...


ape

posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
With regards to Stellar, when he first came in here I consistently proved his sources wrong about Soviet era weaponry. His most often quoted source material was the " Soviet Military Power " reports by teh US DIA. These were constantly far overstated to justify the Reagan era defence budge. After the USSR fell it was discovered that none of these wonder weapons were produced or developed.
I provided many sources which disputed him, yet all he kept on doing was cutting and pasting the same quotes from some notepad document he has. I mean literally about 10 times, I just couldn't be bothered replying to him ( like talking to a war ) anymore, I notice in this post he is doing the same thing. He just regurgitates the same old BS hoping people will get bored - it works, he then claims the lack of another reply refuting the same things ( bearing in mind he has failed to rebuke any of the previous arguments disputing him ) as some sort of victory.
What is really funny about his behaviour is - as others have pointed out - he attempts to belittle people who disagree with him and then cries foul when they push back.

I remember a certain situation where h couldn't even distinguish between 2 completely different types of Russian SAM/ABM missiles. Even though I posted indisputable facts , the idiot still couldn't accept it. He jut resorted to his tactics of cutting and pasting his word document again - he really isn't as smart as some people think, LMAO. Some people are easily dazzled by BS.

Another interesting fact about stellar is, he is a South African who has never left South Africa, he gets all his " world experience " from the Internet.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by rogue1]



hah indeed, I always notice either you, semper or westpoint among others totally destroying stellarX's arguments and he seems to pay no attention to the posts that refute him and expose him. He would fit very well in american politics and would make a good politican, considering most of them are crude.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by ape]

[edit on 6-1-2007 by ape]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
With regards to Stellar, when he first came in here I consistently proved his sources wrong about Soviet era weaponry


You corrected me on a few occasions ( i think three times) while i correct you half a dozen times per post for some weeks. We all make mistakes but some of us never admit them like i do mine. You have never begun to undermine the basic truths in introduced about Soviet weaponry or there intended tactical and strategic doctrinal employment.


. His most often quoted source material was the " Soviet Military Power " reports by teh US DIA.


Another blatant lie you attempted to spread at the time. Reading my source pages would indicate that i employed those documents on occasions but always with corroborating statements from other sources. That being said you never managed to undermine the basic realities as laid out in those reports. You did huff and puff away but always with empty rhetoric that never stood up to any kind of inspection.


These were constantly far overstated to justify the Reagan era defence budge.


Another statement made of enemies of America who tried to undermine American strength further than it already was. The strategic weaponry so often talked about in those reports were not hard to inspect after the disbanding of the USSR and they were normally found to be deployed in greater numbers than those suggested by the DIA's reports. This is well established from looking at post cold war documents.


After the USSR fell it was discovered that none of these wonder weapons were produced or developed.


A blatant and complete lie that should get this account banned just like it did the authors other account. Please attempt to prove that soviet ere strategic weaponry or submarines and mobile ICBMs did not in fact exist.


I provided many sources which disputed him,


Sometimes you gave a single source to dispute a few dozen insisting that yours was right and that all the rest was somehow wrong. You have provided plenty of rhetoric aimed at me but not much directed at the sources i provided.


yet all he kept on doing was cutting and pasting the same quotes from some notepad document he has.


As they were never properly disputed ( just denied without reasons mainly) i had no reason not to employ them again as i try to defend my ideas based on actual data and not on opinions as you do.


I mean literally about 10 times, I just couldn't be bothered replying to him ( like talking to a war ) anymore,


You could not dispute reality so you attacked me or a single source ( like the DIA) hoping that you may succeed in convincing some readers that all the sources were wrong because i posted them and for some reason relied only on lies. Fact is you never undermined the basic realities as laid out by the "Soviet military power" documents and all you could manage was point out that they sometimes overestimated and sometimes underestimated which in your opinion somehow discredited the entire document; we after all know that the USSR provided records of all their weaponry every year to expose the DIA's lies! Intelligence agencies apparently never make mistakes and that must prove that they are knowingly lying when they do! All i have seen you do is avoid reality and attempt to cling to propaganda you heard when you were a great deal younger.


I notice in this post he is doing the same thing. He just regurgitates the same old BS hoping people will get bored - it works,


I hope that people will engage me and point out errors so that i may be forced to reconsider some aspects of what i come to believe on this issue. I most certainly do not think the Russian's will be better 'rulers' of the world than the USA were so i don't see why you think i stand to gain by 'defending' what i currently believe to reflect reality best. The fact that you could not make any kind of dent in what i consider reality to be does not mean that i have not been constantly re-evaluating my beliefs; that's how i work and it's pretty strange for you to assume that your ignorance on the matter could ever change my perception without you providing any kind of grounding for your beliefs.

I am not attempting to 'bore' people ( i rarely tire of inspecting the sources others provide for me to investigate) but if that is what happen when i share some of my sources with them i am not going to apologise for not taking them very seriously. If a person can not deal with large volumes of evidence contradicting his POV he probably does not want his views disputed to start with and since i refuse to be held responsible for the defense of a point of view i have probably already considered ( they most vapid of assaults always comes from those who defend the most prevalent of perceptions) and found to be incorrect i am not going to apologise for the absence of responses to the large volumes of material and sources i sometimes employ.


he then claims the lack of another reply refuting the same things ( bearing in mind he has failed to rebuke any of the previous arguments disputing him ) as some sort of victory.


I don't consider the absence of reply a 'victory' or evidence that my point of view must be true even thought i sometimes indulge in those kinds of fantasies it's not how go about discovering reality as norm. I have almost always ( i remember one- out of maybe a few hundred- post about chemical and biological weapons you typed up that i have not had the time to investigate properly and respond to ) responded to every bit of factual material you introduced by showing why i disagree with it based on the sources i then provided. It is in fact you who almost always disappears and never contest the counter claims while insisting that your view must be correct by the simple qualification that it disputes what i had originally posted no matter what any additional sources i later use as qualification adds to the credibility of the original claim.

Disputing the information provided by others does not determine reality and leaving the discussion the moment your objections are addressed by new material is no way for a serious investigator, of reality, to conduct himself. If you want to be taken seriously ( independent of what the facts might be on that given topic ) you should at least stick around in the discussion and follow the information where it logically leads so that you might for ONCE admit to some of the many mistakes you have made in the past.

As it stands you always stop posting yet never admits mistake while i keep on posting and admit when i misunderstood a technical term or posted piece of data that i later discovered to be inaccurate. I am not the one who is attempting to protect my ego, and commonly believed myths, by denying reality.


What is really funny about his behaviour is - as others have pointed out - he attempts to belittle people who disagree with him and then cries foul when they push back.


I rarely cry foul ( i think i have contacted the moderators on about five occasions in the last near 20 months and 1500 posts) and i rarely get away with the behaviour so often allowed people like you. I have been thinking and i think it's a mistake that i do not complain more as the type of discussion you want to get involved in has nothing to do with discovering reality and everything to do with protecting your vanity and hiding ignorance on this topic.

If i am insulting a person odds are i am responding to such behaviour that the mods simply chose to ignore while moderating good factual posts by informed ATS members. I don't know if that is due to most mods not really understanding the subject matters they are so frequently forced to moderate ( and thus siding with those who insult commonly accepted views) or because they have been chosen for their biased ways but it's pretty obvious that insult coupled with general ignorance is not a problem as long as you support consensus as maintained by propaganda.


I remember a certain situation where h couldn't even distinguish between 2 completely different types of Russian SAM/ABM missiles. Even though I posted indisputable facts , the idiot still couldn't accept it.


As i have no patience left for your vapid attacks i will contact the moderators so that you do not get to call any more people idiots. If you want to restate your position on the V-1000/Sa-5 Gammon issue feel free as i still have all the information and had no problem showing up the ignorance you displayed on that matter.



  exclusive video


top topics
 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join