Are the Russians more prepared for Nuclear war?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Ah yes you were talking about geopoliltical influence..
Well that's a very complex and altogether different ball game.
The US was making inroads into east european/former soviet republics but the Russians are pretty good in certain middle eastern states and the central asian republics.
Also the US has been losing out in South America and the West in general has been losing out in Africa.




posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
First, I am in-bulk replying to the pro-Russian sentiment. This does not however mean that I agree with it's counterpart, on the contrary, both sides are throwing around facts which are either blatantly false or have no support.

With that notice -- if anyone has any question as to whether or not what I say is legitimate, simply ask me, and I will find evidence. However, because of the restrictions of time, I cannot do so now, not for everything I will say, so, bare with me.



---------------------------
Leevi

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..
----------------------------
There is no historical evidence that Russia has ever been the most-prepared state of any war. In my opinion, and that only, the most-prepared nation of any war was Germany in World War II.
-----------------------------
Leevi
President Bush is no longer popular among the Americans,
[True, approval rating ranges from 20-40%]
Rumsfeld is gone, leaving chaos in Iraq
[Chaos existed before hand, had originally planned to retire during 2004 elections.]
and they haven't got any other idea than to leave Iraq in that exact state for now.
[That is, actually, what the Democratic side has suggested. The current office is suggesting a methodical withdrawel, leaving security forces to fend for themselves, instead of using our combat-forces as crutches. Yes, this is extremely reminiscent of Vietnam, however, we've learned from that conflict despite what is happening now.]
--------------------------
US is evidently helpless.
[Helpless how? Yes, we're in a rut, it's a huge issue, and we're confused on how to go about it, though by no-means helpless.]
--------------------------
From the moment the US occupied Iraq, over 500000 peaceful Iraqi people died there.
[This is from a highly controversial study, done by, I believe, a group of Iraqi people? Their medical-group, I believe, and incorporated all insurgents, and civillian deaths from car-bombing, etc. This is not primarily, solely the U.S.-inflicted casualties.]
-------------------------
The motivation was to find a nuclear bomb.. Nothing was ever found.
[Any WMD, actually. And to the contrary, we found quite a few chemical warheads still in old stockpiles. Most, while being used as IED's, as the insurgents hadn't a clue that they were, in any way, special. We've found smaller stockpiles, things kept, to rebuild or reinforce their WMD-research at a later date, though, no. We found no evidence of recency in the program. Just left-overs.]
--------------------------
They just killed so many people..and never even felt sorry about that.
[Be careful, characterizing an entire nation's emotional response. Do you remember that we are no longer fond of the war? Much at all? Meanwhile we have thousands of humanitarians, US, and other countries, working to aid the impoverished people there.]
-------------------------
--------------------------



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I would like to apologize for anything I misquote. Leevi, I understand English is not your primary language, and while I 'get' the general argument you make, individual parts may be misunderstood.
Thank you for taking your time to express your opinions, in another language, on our board.


Originally posted by Daedalus3
Inc

i woud like to comment, the russian forces are definately not deteriorating as much as Americans think,
[Most-likely true, depending on the American.]
the russians have a great military,
[True, relatively.]
and if need be the military can be rejuvenated and brought up to date,
[It would take time, and exert extreme economic pressure, though still true.]
which it actually is right now for a defensive war,
[Debate-ably true, considering the motivation isn't exactly 'war'.]
Russia is the largest threat to the US right now,
[In-correct. In any context, they are at best, second-greatest.[
and that is exactly why the US is in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and is trying to trigger "color Revolutions" in former Soviet sattelites,
[No. By-and-large, the United States has forgotten the Cold War; so far as to say, making satellites of Eastern-European countries.]
which the russians have resisted, and are making great strides in that geopolitical war,
[How have they resisted a non-existant threat?]
right now the two countries are almost on equal footing...
[In no way, are they on equal footing.]
---------------------------
Leevi

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.
[Russia is hardly a large energy-trade partner, I assume that's what you're talking about. Yes, its oil and natural gas reserves, the latter especially, are extrordinary, however they're not exactly a vital interest -- Gas nonwithstanding. If you mean it's an issue of jealousy, well, illegally detaining and charging your nation's largest oil-tycoon, than assuming control of his 'empire', and I use that in a purely 'business' sense, would indeed make it in charge of the state. Nothing to be proud of, however, and something we'd not care to do.]
American government and many European countries want to gain access to the Great National Resources of Russia,
[True, we desire your country to build its infrastructure, so that it may provide, through trade, another source of energy. This is not to say we want it for ourselves, but we desire other avenues than the middle-east to acquire our energy. It's win-win.]
not giving anything equal in exchange.
[Cash, political capital, corporate interest.]
And that is exactly what happens when we talk about geopolitical "war". If Russia was a desert, nobody would need it.
[No one need it now. However, because it does have an abundant amount of natural resources, there is great interest in, again, a build-up of infrastructure, and an establishment of trade.]
But it is very large and very rich ...are afraid of it... not vicious and not disgusting as some other great countries are nowadays.
[Personal attack. Please refrain from 'disgusting' as a description.]
------------------------------
More Leevi

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.
[Yes, knowledge feeds research. And yes, historically Russia equipment is quite cheap. Due in-part to a state-controlled weapons program, and second, it has many more soldiers to arm. The latter is in my opinion.]
-------------------------------
Russia's latest subs are of high-end military technology which doesn't have analogues anywhere in the world.
[No question, Russia's military equipment is highly-advanced. -However- it does have its equals, and its superiors.]
-------------------------------




posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
I want to partially reply to the last poster in saying that I do believe Russia to be the US's greatest enemy because they are the US's long term problem and capable of doing great damage. The current short term problems such as terrorism do relatively little damage.

Now, statistically the Russians have more nuclear warheads deployed in more survivable vehicles...mobile launchers. The US have numerically inferior numbers and thus less chances of destroying the Russian's entire forces.

Russia can sneak their bombers through US safety nets.

Someone said the Russians no longer use their satellites for early warning...whatever they say publically...they probably still use them. But it doesn't matter, the US has a policy of second strike only. More likely the Russians would attack than the US.

Russias technology is on par with the US but they don't develop it why? Impractible, unlike the US Russia is not dominated by a military industrial compkex. Capitalists in the US military industrial complex want the most expensive hardware. Russia wants what will get the job done.

Those rusting Submarines will still sink most of the US fleet (Aircraft Carriers cost hundreds of Billions USD and take years to build) and the Russian sub costs rather little.

Russian aircraft piloted well with Satellite support will do as well as almost all US fighters.

Russians are practical, they go for the steel helmet without the horse hair.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi

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]


So tell me... What would you do if a country you knew could destroy you military with in weeks, and find weapons your were trying to hide do? Would you not ship them out to friendly countries who were willing to hide them for you? Would you leave them a map telling them where you put them? Im not trying to say they were there, im just saying that if they were ever there leaving them out in the open wouldn't be the best choice now would it?

I say this over and over again. In recent wars the US has to limit it's power military force. Politics play a large role in wars fought today. If American's ever felt like their lives were in danger, like after 9/11 people would support the US going in and saving the day. As soon as American's feel safe again the switch to war mode is turned off and war is the worst thing that could happen to anybody. When their lives and the lives of their friends and family are in danger then they will feel free to fight like the insergancy dose. Human nature is just too pradictable. This may offend some of you but it's true. Some think the US will stage a fake attack to get American people to support a war. What will people think when real bombs from a real enemy are falling on their homes? Their wives/husbands, their children, their friends? Who are they going to ask to fight for them? Their government? The one they don't support? I think they will find it useless when they try to defend themselves, there own family and friends. You just can't take on an organized military. They will find you.

On that point, do you think they will care if they kill 500,000? 1,000,000? Do you believe their leaders when they say they do not mean to harm the American people? Do you believe that they wont kill you when trying to destroy the American govenment? Do you not believe that everything could be turned around?

The way I see things is that it's better if one country holds all the cards. That way all the other counties know when to fold. Russia making more nuclear weapons is not a big deal, they already know the game. They know the rules and what happens when things go bad. See they already hold a few cards of their own so the other players know not to mess with them. It's when fresh players enter the game that I would start to get worried.

Call me crazy but this world is not fair. We would like to think that when the underdog stands up to the bully he is going to come out on top. We would like to think the bully is going to learn his lesson. But in reality the bully is going to fight back. The bully is going to prove that he is more powerful than the underdog. That's when problems start to come up, when the bully and the underdog are fighting. And when nuclear weapons are involved, I think that is a fight that we are going to want to skip.

On topic, Russia would have no reason to prepair for nuclear war. With all of the old WMD's that both countries have the MAD theory is still around. Unless the make some sort of WMD that the US would not be able to detect things are pretty much in the same boat.

Styki



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Its also noteworthy the Russians believe they can win a Nuclear war.

Also, they did worse to the Chechens than what the US did to Iraqis (remember in Iraq the insurgents kill Iraqis not the US).



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Somebody just misquoted me over here..

I didn't write all that!



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Brief point of clarification:
Insurgents kill U.S. soldiers, US Supporters.
Sectarian violence kills civillians.


Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
...Russia to be the US's greatest enemy because they are the US's long term problem and capable of doing great damage. The current short term problems such as terrorism do relatively little damage.
[Do they have the ability to commit the most damage to U.S. interests, people, infrastructure? Yes. On a solely nuclear-scale, they win this argument.]

Now, statistically the Russians have more nuclear warheads deployed in more survivable vehicles...mobile launchers. The US have numerically inferior numbers and thus less chances of destroying the Russian's entire forces.
[Survivable vehicles is questionable. The U.S. has mobile launchers, though largely defunct as we have no 'domestic' enemies that would require that scale, and we've relegated most of our missiles to the submarines and Air Force, both of which have a much greater ability to stay intact that mere mobiles, and are also quite capable in their own right. [And, generally, not one-shot deals, such as the launchers.]


Russia can sneak their bombers through US safety nets.
[This is debate-able. Yes, our net is not perfect. We have holes, we have weak regions, we have areas where stealth-aircraft are hard, if not impossible, to detect. However, over the mainland and near the coast this would be an extremely difficult feat to achieve. The Russian Tupolev series, notably now, the Blackjack -- Beautiful aircraft by-to-by, second only to the B2 I think, as bombers go -- Is neither a stealth aircraft, nor does it match modern-day detection systems. [To be fair, in most European states, and the Asian continent, it is extremely formidable. A respectable amount of stealth design, and an extremely large payload capacity, fairly high speed, and ceiling height, mean it is, without a doubt, the dominant bomber-aircraft on that side of the world.] Yes, they could sneak some in, but the great majority, if not all, would be struck down. If not by Anti-Air systems, than by the customary Fighter-Aircraft followup of a detection.]


Someone said the Russians no longer use their satellites for early warning...whatever they say publically...they probably still use them. But it doesn't matter, the US has a policy of second strike only. More likely the Russians would attack than the US.
[This is, to an extent, true. They still pay several of their satellites -- I'll grab my book later, if any would like -- to use their old facilities, notably their Cold War Early-Warning systems. However, as also said, these are falling into disarray, and requiring more constant, more-intensive repair.]

Russias technology is on par with the US .. Russia is not dominated by a military industrial compkex. ... Russia wants what will get the job done.
[One. Aside from the T-95, the Russian technology is not, under any circumstances, on par with the United States, though it certainly ranks ahead of a vast majority of other powers. Second, they don't develop it due to budget constraints, it's generally to update their own force, and sell their next-latest design to allies. Much as the United States does. However, instead of private organization receiving funds, these go directly to the Russian government.]

Those rusting Submarines will still sink most of the US fleet
[What few Russian submarines are still operational and not dry-docked are relatively out-dated, and crew training-experience is limited. Let alone, get through the escort and to the actual carrier. And they cost $4.5 billion a piece, not hundreds of billions.]

Russian aircraft piloted well with Satellite support will do as well as almost all US fighters.
[The relatively few Russian satellites operational are not intended for aircraft use. And, the performance of US - Russian aircraft is radically different.]




posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
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?


Wow. Another country violating international treaties!

You do realise that the US ballistic missile shield breaks international treaties the US drew up with the Russians regarding nuclear weapons, don't you?



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   
The BMD does not break any treaties...only if it is deployed nationally.

Russian tech is on par..Cy-35s equal the F-22s in capability and Russian pilots are amazing. Ive watched many defense and strategic policy analysts marvel at their flying that I show to them.

Tanks and guidance and bombers...

As for SLBMs...not accurate enough for the artillery duel strategy of Nuclear war...only good against airports...ports things like that.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
XPhiles,
Any source on the Russians only depending on grounds radar and not military satellites?


I will try to find it for you, here are some other resources.



Rodionov's warning may have been, in part, a maneuver to muster political support for greater defense spending. But recent reports by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency confirm that Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces have indeed fallen on hard times. Local utility managers have repeatedly shut off the power to various nuclear weapons installations after the military authorities there failed to pay their electric bills. Worse yet, the equipment that controls nuclear weapons frequently malfunctions, and critical electronic devices and computers sometimes switch to a combat mode for no apparent reason.





The Russian early warning network constructed by the former Soviet Union to
detect a ballistic missile attack is perhaps the most neglected component
of the strategic posture. Many ground radars no longer operate or routinely
suffer power outages and other afflictions; only three of its nine modern
radars (large phased-array radars) are working at all. Three have been
deactivated or never completed, and three are inoperable or barely
functional. Seven out of ten older, less capable Hen House radars sit
outside Russia in former Soviet republics, and some of them may be shut
down for political reasons. Two of the nine slots in Russia's constellation
of early warning satellites monitoring U.S. and Chinese ICBM fields are
empty, and Russia lacks satellite coverage of the oceans. So information
provided by these sensors is becoming increasingly unreliable.

The aging command system and communications networks that support nuclear
operations, including launch on warning, are also crumbling. These networks
are typically five or more years past due for overhaul and modernization;
some components are ten or more years past their design life. Their
performance is degrading, raising the question whether they will fail safe
or deadly. Even the famous nuclear suitcases that receive early warning
information and accompany the President, Defense Minister, and Chief of the
General Staff, are falling into disrepair.


Source: www.fas.org...

Most of this sources mainly deal with an accidental launch.

In 1995, the Strategic Rocket Forces in Russia went on alert because of a norwegian scientific rocket that Russia had been informed about, yet the radar operators were never told.

The world came within 2 minutes of a nuclear war. Scary stuff.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 04:57 AM
link   
ok . i know this link is to Rense , but i feel this is relevant to this disscusion:

www.rense.com...

External Source "MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia's military has commissioned its first unit of new intercontinental ballistic missiles mounted on mobile launchers, the ITAR-Tass news agency reported Sunday

snoopyuk

[edit on 14-12-2006 by snoopyuk]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
As I said, the 1990s was a different time for the Russians. They were convalescing from the breakup of the USSR.Much has changed in the last 4-5 years..



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted 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.


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]


That figure for Iraqi dead is bogus. By most accurate accounts, the actual number is maybe 1/10 of that figure(and that includes Iraqis killed by insurgents, and from other health issues as a result of the war).



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
The Mikoyan - 35 was first, a technological test-bed. It's had few test-runs, all of short-duration, and according to GlobalSecurity, JAS, and Wikipedia, they were never produced due to fiscal constraints.
[Although they are being sold to different countries, as of.. now.]

To be fair, if we designed a new jet, today, it could 'surpass' the capabilities of the F-22. But to produce, and use, and train, is a far-different discussion.

The Project 1.44 is an aesthetically beautiful craft, with new technologies, and huge potential. However, militarily, it is nonexistant. Let's wait a bit before we throw hollow claims. :]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
First, the Cy-35 is comparable to the F-22 ... thats the claim. And the F-22 is about as advanced as it can get.

On topic, I find it hard to believe especially in Putin's Russia that the power companies can shut-off the electricity to the military for not paying bills. The current structure of the military is described as "if the Russian military were comprised of volunteers it would march on Moscow."

Meaning that the Military as always is partly independent in Russia. If a power company cut the power yhen soldiers would kill those responsible.

There may have been a few cases of this but I'm sure it has been delt with harshly.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Pfft. F-22. If we're going solely on fighters, I'm still holding out for the YF-23. The Black Widow. Beautiful thing, and I can't wait to see the, hopefully more successful, follow-up.

The claims were that it was equal. Exact word, and, while I agree it has the potential to be -- Potential, it is not an actual weapon in-use by an air-force as of now, so to say the Russian military could use it is faulty, being that they have none to use!



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
The Mikoyan - 35 was first, a technological test-bed. It's had few test-runs, all of short-duration, and according to GlobalSecurity, JAS, and Wikipedia, they were never produced due to fiscal constraints.
[Although they are being sold to different countries, as of.. now.]

To be fair, if we designed a new jet, today, it could 'surpass' the capabilities of the F-22. But to produce, and use, and train, is a far-different discussion.

The Project 1.44 is an aesthetically beautiful craft, with new technologies, and huge potential. However, militarily, it is nonexistant. Let's wait a bit before we throw hollow claims. :]


And you know the full capabilities of the F-22? That aircraft is classified. I highly doubt an inferior russian military could come up with an aircraft the 'surpasses' the F-22. Americas "AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER".The US has been at this game alot longer then russa has. Our military budget is $$560,000,000,000$$$ worth. I have no doubt american military techno is 50 years beyond what the public knows. Russia is a paper tiger. A shell of its former self. Its starting from the ground up again. Russia still has some pretty neat gadgettes and gizmos but without the funding, will never have a top tier aircraft that even comes half as close to the F-22s capabilities for foreseeable future.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi
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.


IT means not only can we the US come up with cool technologys that give us the extra edge over other countrys. But we can afford it. Unlike russia. Russia could have Eistiens brain, But in russias case 'knowledge' alone wont fund the programmes you come up with.
Your also under the false impression that the US has a bunch of idiots for scientist. Well thats just not true.....

Also, if im not mistaken alot of russian scientist came to the US when the USSR colapsed, spilling the beans so to speak of what the USSR had working on.


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


care to show a source to these 'new subs'? Russia cant afford to go out to sea let alone build new sophisticated subs.


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.


True. But the mafia runs that country. Russia is very corrupt.



[edit on 023131p://444 by semperfoo]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
Pfft. F-22. If we're going solely on fighters, I'm still holding out for the YF-23. The Black Widow. Beautiful thing, and I can't wait to see the, hopefully more successful, follow-up.

The claims were that it was equal. Exact word, and, while I agree it has the potential to be -- Potential, it is not an actual weapon in-use by an air-force as of now, so to say the Russian military could use it is faulty, being that they have none to use!

The YF-22 has evovled. The F-22 and the YF-22 are not the same aircraft. The reason why the f22 was picked over the f23 was because the f22 was more manueverable. The f23 acutally might have a place in the future USAF as a bomber. Which would be a fitting role for such an aircraft.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join