End all be all...Russia's Status as a Super Power

I was greatly impressed with StellarX's finds on Russian power. I think his argument that the idea that Russian military power "vaporized" in a few years as being rediculous is a great argument.

I am tired, my arms need rest (currently my distal Radius is fractured into more than 6 pieces) but tomorrow or later I may resume this with my opinions.

For now, I'd like to create this as a definitive thread.

No, "Russia versus the US? hahah the US would own."

This should be about capability and doctrine, not opinions built by recruitment advertisements.

My opinion is that Russia has a significant advantage in that the US is going very expensive (I believe driven by capitalism at the very least) so Russia is going for very cheap and effective counter-measures.

That is...missiles and subs that destroy our multi-billion dollar aircraft carriers that take years to build.

Anti-Air installations that bring down our billion dollar planes by the dozens.

I'm sure they feel Americans are as unwilling to spend money in war as they are to watch soldiers die.

So what may be perceived as low-tech is really "what gets the job done".

Why drive to work in a Bentley when you can get there in a Yugo?

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
I was greatly impressed with StellarX's finds on Russian power. I think his argument that the idea that Russian military power "vaporized" in a few years as being rediculous is a great argument.

Just want to make sure everyone understand that i sometimes go overboard and that don't really want to pretend that i can prove Russia or the USSR would have won either a conventional or a nuclear war. Having said that my arguments are in favour of that scenario because that's what the evidence have lead me to conclude.

I'm sure they feel Americans are as unwilling to spend money in war as they are to watch soldiers die.

So what may be perceived as low-tech is really "what gets the job done".

Why drive to work in a Bentley when you can get there in a Yugo?

If one looks at the defense budget i don't think Americans consider their strategic position as compromised as it clearly is and that they are in fact willing to spend what it takes and bleed where they must if they believe they are under attack. I think the Russians understand that feigning weakness ( or allowing such propaganda to go mostly uncontested) is in their interest as a perception of Russian strength or superiority will only make a aggressive stance by their old enemies so much easier.

America's strength is not being compromised by the average person or soldier but by their political leaders who are slowly draining military resources and manpower on missions ordered by who knows who.

If American scientist and military leaders where allowed to do the things they wanted when they wanted i am quite convinced that things would have turned out VERY differently than it has as it took a concerned effort on the side of American policy makers to compromise Americans almost complete dominance in the early and mid 60's leading so quickly to strategic vulnerability in the late 60's and early 70's and then a shift of strategic initiative around the mid late 70's.

Hope this clarifies my position!

Stellar

The former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Warsaw Pact were, indeed, a formidable weapon.

Militarily speaking, the Warsaw Pact [WP] was a force to be reckoned with. Having said that, military units within the WP were categorised as being fit for war by their unit designation.

The elite of all forces were given an 'A' prefix, whilst second string units were given a 'B' designation and reservists and recruit units were given a 'C' designation.

'A' type units would invariably get the best equipment, the best officers, snco's and jnco's and would often get the coveted Guards title.

'B' type units were mostly high quality troops with good quality equipment whilst 'C' type units were there largely to make up the numbers with obselete or semi-obsolete equipment - much in the same way as our territorial army - turn up for 2 weeks and maybe fire your rifle or drive your tank, but only if there was anough rounds of fuel to go round.

Even so, sheer weight of numbers and Soviet doctrine [stated intentions of first use of chemical weapons in front line areas and biological weapons in Brigade, Divisional and Corps rear areas] would, I think, have ensured a quick WP victory.

I say this because NATO commander would have been at odds with each other in the form of what retaliation they should take. [The scenario of George Bush telling Iraq that if they used chemical weapons coalition forces would go nuclear - just did not exist, if only because the WP had the will to use nuclear wpns]

At the time - say the early and perhaps the late 70's, the Russian led WP was comparable to and in certain cases better than the NATO forces it faced - especially in artillery, fighter-bomber aircraft and most certainly in helicopter gunships where NATO had nothing much to offer.

As I said, I think the WP would have won any conflict, but perhaps it would have been a close run thing.

With regards to Russia and her military power today, she is no longer a superpower. Her military is no longer to be feared - even if that fear was misplaced in the first place.

Russian military itself, does not pose a threat. It is the mafia gangs with access to military weapons, equipment and nuclear technology that pose the threat, as recently demonstrated by the death of an ex KGB spy in London.

It depends on what you mean by a “Superpower”. They do and will for the foreseeable future posses a large nuclear force.

However, Demographics=Destination. In simple terms, Russia is dying. Their population will crash in the coming decades and that does not a Superpower make.

You people want to talk about arms and weapons systems, when in the large stroke of history, they are practically meaningless when a country lacks a will to survive.

The fact that the population is declining is contradict to the fact that Russia
is the 2nd or 3rd most popular immigration destination.This means that
the people who immigrate are obviously looking for a better place to live and they find it in Russia.

Looking to the economics of Russia specially after Putin took over the Presidency one should not neglect the fact that huge amounts of capitals are on the disposal of the people who are on the control of the energy-giants which is no other than the former Soviet-bureocrats=neocapitalists.

These people are more than willing to have a superpower military capability- which is maching their global economic interests.

Which brings us to our subject. It would be silly to think that these people would let their Army tear apart.

The ruusian doctrine is :protect our sources
nitiate alliancies that deteriorate the enemy(US)
developtment of cost effective military tech

Sorry if i slipt away from the topic but i find hard to isoliate the military part without looking to the economic principals which form it.
(Please excuse my english-not my mother tongue)

To attempt to argue against Russia's population decline is frankly, preposterous. The data couldn't be clear or more alarming. The only thing to argue about is whether Russia past the point of no return.

POPULATION LOSS IN THE 1990s
Russia has lost population every year since 1992, when its resident
population peaked at 148.4 million (Institut National d’Études
Démographiques [INED], 2000). By late 2000, the Russian population
had dropped to 145 million, a loss of more than 3 million in eight
years, and Russian statisticians were predicting losses would continue
for decades to come, including additional losses of 11 million
persons by 2015 (New York Times, 2000; Karush, 2001).1

www.rand.org...

Among the “rich” countries, only the U.S. is growing; Europe, Russia, and Japan are all shrinking.

...

The Russian population dynamic is especially noteworthy: Russia has an unhealthy population; it is born unhealthy, it grows up unhealthy, and it dies prematurely. Declining fertility and rising mortality—especially among working age males—have reduced the population… [which] will further contract in the next five decades to the level of 1960.
www.gbn.com...

Demographics=Destination.




[edit on 22-12-2006 by Number23]

[edit on 22-12-2006 by Number23]

Originally posted by Number23
It depends on what you mean by a “Superpower”. They do and will for the foreseeable future posses a large nuclear force.

And does the ability to destroy your enemies outright not make you a 'superpower' by almost any definition of the word?

However, Demographics=Destination. In simple terms, Russia is dying. Their population will crash in the coming decades and that does not a Superpower make.

So now we are making arguments in favour of human wave attacks? What does economic stability and strategic power in this modern age have to do with the number of residents in your country? Do you realise that Russia and China have formed a strategic alliance against the USA and allies and that they DO have the population base to make up for any Russian shortcomings?

You people want to talk about arms and weapons systems, when in the large stroke of history, they are practically meaningless when a country lacks a will to survive.

What do you mean lack the will to survive? The 'superpower' that currently does not posses a active National anti-ballistic missile shield is NOT Russia but in fact the USA? The country that has built up it's infrastructure so that almost it's entire population base may survive a nuclear exchange also happens to be Russia? I am sorry but according to your definition it's the US government that has no will to survive and no amount of warm bodies in that country will rectify the governments aims of undermining their own security.

So lets start the discussion then as i can see you desperately want to believe what you currently do and may very well believe it's the truth!

Stellar

posted by stellarX
And does the ability to destroy your enemies outright not make you a 'superpower' by almost any definition of the word?

i respectfully somewhat disagree, IMO if that was the case then i guess you can consider north korea a superpower, they are fully capable of destroying SK, look at how much weaponry is aimed at seoul. some goes for iran, if they get nukes and are capable of destroying their enemys does this make them a super power?

with great power IMO comes great responsibility to spread economic influence, investment and progression along with culture and way of government etc, simply having a nuclear aresenal does show a degree of power but there are different aspects of power where russia failed was convincing countries outside of their border that their system was better, they influenced some countries to a degree but oviously as history proves this influence only went so far.

IMO the ability to influence foriegn countries to adopt a similar style of capitalism, government and culture has far more sway than wielding nukes. the US has excelled at this and this IMO is what defines a superpower.

[edit on 22-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 22-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 22-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 22-12-2006 by ape]

Originally posted by StellarX
What do you mean lack the will to survive? The 'superpower' that currently does not posses a active National anti-ballistic missile shield is NOT Russia but in fact the USA? The country that has built up it's infrastructure so that almost it's entire population base may survive a nuclear exchange also happens to be Russia? I am sorry but according to your definition it's the US government that has no will to survive and no amount of warm bodies in that country will rectify the governments aims of undermining their own security.

By that I mean, the people, culture, society and country is healthy, vibrant and GROWING. Russia is none of these.

To be a Superpower, you need economic power, to have that, you need a healthy, vibrant, productive and growing population. Russia is shrinking.

Who's getting Turkmenistan?

This is a true test of Russia's current political influence..
Lets wait and watch..

Russia has more nukes than any other country. 16000. Their military equipment is junk, but it doesn't matter since they have 16000 warheads. Russia is a threat to us.

At the same time, the Bliar regime - payed by Moscow - is disarming Great Britain, therefore making it a country unable to defend itself.

Originally posted by Number23
By that I mean, the people, culture, society and country is healthy, vibrant and GROWING. Russia is none of these.

The American economy is not growing, the people are eating themselves to death and i am not sure how vibrant overweight people can be. What is healthy about invading countries and killing innocents based on complete lies? I have enjoyed reading your posts on some other issues but what your saying about Russia just does not correspond with the reality that can be readily uncovered with some effort.

To be a Superpower, you need economic power, to have that, you need a healthy, vibrant, productive and growing population. Russia is shrinking.

And if you understood the USA's economic position you might realise that you are in fact agreeing with me!

www.house.gov...

Please read some of his recent speeches and statements before the house to begin to understand how bad things really are...

The April 25 2006 piece entitled "What the price of gold is telling us" is particularly good but reading anything on his site would probably inform.

Stellar

Originally posted by ape
i respectfully somewhat disagree, IMO if that was the case then i guess you can consider north korea a superpower, they are fully capable of destroying SK, look at how much weaponry is aimed at seoul.

They can do great damage but they will suffer all kinds of hell in assured response so i hardly consider them a superpower or see any reason why you should want to. Maybe i should have been more accurate in stating that being a superior is being able to inflict violence that can not be returned in kind?

some goes for iran, if they get nukes and are capable of destroying their enemys does this make them a super power?

Once again no it's not because that will still not increase their standing in world affairs...

with great power IMO comes great responsibility to spread economic influence, investment and progression along with culture and way of government etc,

Well non of that came with America's great power so whateer your trying to prove just wont be...

simply having a nuclear aresenal does show a degree of power but there are different aspects of power where russia failed was convincing countries outside of their border that their system was better, they influenced some countries to a degree but oviously as history proves this influence only went so far.

I guess that is why there are no socialist countries and why those countries have some of the or the highest living standards in the world?

IMO the ability to influence foriegn countries to adopt a similar style of capitalism, government and culture has far more sway than wielding nukes. the US has excelled at this and this IMO is what defines a superpower

The US did nothing but terrorise whichever nation it had to to ensure the dominance of it's system by whatever means it required. Noam Chomsky, William Blum, John Pilger, Greg Palast, Michael Parenti are just a few of the people who could tell you why it's not accurate to consider the US a force for good in world affairs.

Stellar

there are plenty of ways for the US to maintain a hegemon especially with reforms and replacements such as the fair tax., simple adjustments which would bring back US industry and would double our GDP and economic growth and halt outsourcing, creditor nation once again. if you think this wont happen then you obviously underestimate the american citizen, no matter how much you dislike my country it is still a great place to live and thrive and this is undisputed, if you have never been and lived here I dont expect you to even form an accurate opinion about it.

posted by stellarx
And does the ability to destroy your enemies outright not make you a 'superpower' by almost any definition of the word?

posted by ape
some goes for iran, if they get nukes and are capable of destroying their enemys does this make them a super power?

posted by stellarx
Once again no it's not because that will still not increase their standing in world affairs...

well you were not very clear, now im not very sure what you mean, you just said the ability to destroy your enemy makes you a superpower so im not sure how iran being able to destroy lets say iraq doesn't make them a superpower, considering where they stand in world affairs was never mentioned at all in any original post.

originally posted by stellar
Well non of that came with America's great power so whateer your trying to prove just wont be...

more people invest in american than russia, and this has always been the case. not to mention US GDP even though I know you believe its an easily manipulated number and figure is still higher than all other countries by a long shot, it took a bloc of european countries to finally barley surpass the US GDP this years, props to the EU but as soon as fairtax is established we will double up on your GDP and we will take back our industry and take yours aswell . now what sucks is that the EU socialist wont let loose their grasp on the population so i dont expect the EU to form a model US tax system that resembles fairtax, which will be enabled soon enough.

are you a socialist? thats a horrible flaweed form of government, in the US the socialist programs and liberal programs such as income redistribution, taking away from hard working americans like myself and giving it to some lazy ass who doesn't want to work for crap. section 8 housing I have to pay for people to live in a brand new house living off of my tax dollars and watch them live more lavishly than myself who does well but still gets crunched sometimes.

[edit on 26-12-2006 by ape]

Originally posted by ape
there are plenty of ways for the US to maintain a hegemon especially with reforms and replacements such as the fair tax.,

They no longer have hegemony and lack the strategic initiative to change the world in a way that benefits the US public. Think about the last three decades and then tell me as it would be interesting to point out how in the vast majority of the instances other benefit far more or US standing and strength is simply being undermined.

simple adjustments which would bring back US industry

The industry going to other countries was a deliberate policy executed by the US government for reason i won't go into here. Globalization is all about weakening states and making them mutually dependent so that no one can operate in it's own exclusive interest for fear of what the rest will do to it. This is the aims of the NWO and apparently the US government either lacks the means to resist them or are simply part of their organization.

and would double our GDP and economic growth and halt outsourcing, creditor nation once again.

Once again what caused all these things to happen were by no means 'natural' and it was deliberately staged to undermine America and the rights and freedoms Americans still enjoy on paper. America can not recover economically ( and will not, i can assure you) before Americans take back control over their own governing bodies.

if you think this wont happen then you obviously underestimate the american citizen, no matter how much you dislike my country it is still a great place to live and thrive and this is undisputed, if you have never been and lived here I dont expect you to even form an accurate opinion about it.

I want Americans to act in their own best interest hence my involvement here.

well you were not very clear, now im not very sure what you mean, you just said the ability to destroy your enemy makes you a superpower so im not sure how iran being able to destroy lets say iraq doesn't make them a superpower, considering where they stand in world affairs was never mentioned at all in any original post.

MAD is not something a real superpower would ever take part in and Russia never were willing to have itself destroyed in a nuclear war. In both countries elaborate civil defenses and missile defenses were started up unlike in the USA Russian military planners did not have their plans and ideas undermined by their civilian leaders ( as much as such was seperate in the USSR) resulting then and now in extensive passive and active defenses.

ex]At the end of the briefing McNamara accepted the cost-exchange ratios as being no more than 4: 1 in favor of the offense (down from 100:1), which made NIKE-X cost-effective by the standards he had prescribed.
(12) However, in an emotional outburst during the briefing McNamara rejected the evidence that the Soviets put first priority on destroying MM silos in order to limit damage to the USSR, saying that as a Soviet Marshal he would target the entire arsenal on U.S. cities. Hence he refused to approve NIKE-X deployment to protect U.S. citizens from the FSU on the grounds of MAD theology--U. S. ABM defenses would be "destabilizing" by orcing the Soviets to respond with a massive MIRVed ICBM buildup.

The Joint Chiefs used a version of that 1966 NIKE-X briefing to ambush McNamara when they met with President Johnson at his ranch in December 1966, persuading Johnson to overrule McNamara and order deployment of U.S. national ABM, although not the defense against the FSU that the Chiefs proposed.(13) While the Chief's briefing is not available, a memo for the record prepared by W. W. Rostow, then President

Johnson's national security adviser, is.(14)

According to Mr. Rostow's memo, the Chiefs recommended MIKE-X deployment at 25 cities to save the lives of 30 to 50 million U.S. citizens, if attacked. McMamara opposed the Chiefs' proposal on the grounds of MAD
heology and simplistic "action-reaction":

* it was "inconceivable" that the Soviets would react in any other way but to restore the status quo ante, i.e.

120 million U.S. population fatalities;
* both sides would spend a lot of money and end up where they started, but we would waste the most because offensive weapons were so much cheaper than ABM systems;
* the danger of war would not be reduced;
* the FSU had "been wrong in its nuclear defense policy for a decade" because everything spent on all types of defenses (air and missile) had been wasted.(15)

The Chiefs saw it quite differently:

* NIKE-X would save tens of millions of lives against a Soviet population attack, and that was a worthwhile objective;
* while they could not predict with confidence how the Soviets would react, all likely reactions had a substantial price and would divert funds from other military programs--no free lunches;
* the risk of nuclear attack would be reduced

www.fas.org...

There is large volumes of evidence proving how the political leaders ensured the current American vulnerability.

more people invest in american than russia, and this has always been the case. not to mention US GDP even though I know you believe its an easily manipulated number and figure is still higher than all other countries by a long shot, it took a bloc of european countries to finally barley surpass the US GDP this years,

Those investment funds move around in financial institutions and i would say that Americans are generally prosperous despite it , not because of it. The American housing bubble is as large as all the other bubble's the American system is now based on and it's surprising that things are holding together at all.

props to the EU but as soon as fairtax is established we will double up on your GDP and we will take back our industry and take yours aswell

.

Fairtax or anything like it will NOT happen as Americans don't understand what is going on and lack the unity or knowledge to affect the changes they must to save themselves.

now what sucks is that the EU socialist wont let loose their grasp on the population so i dont expect the EU to form a model US tax system that resembles fairtax, which will be enabled soon enough.

Europeans are generally a bit smarter when it comes to their choices of government officials and due to that reason they can probably afford a bit of socialism better than most. The EU is foundering any ways and i would be somewhat surprised if the people allow more centralization any year soon. That being said it's at a point where only deliberate action will probably be able to break apart the current agreements so the momentum might already be too great to stop it before great damage is done.

are you a socialist? thats a horrible flaweed form of government,

The American corporate environment ( and the European one to a lesser degree) are based on socialism as they expect bail out's from the tay payer whenever they get into serious trouble. As long as they can make a strong case for themselves in the media they own they get bailed out. Why should we allow socialism for the rich only while the poor must put up with capitalism and free market exploitation? I am not socialist and i believe that government should do little more than centralized administration and i fear even that might result in too much power when left alone.

in the US the socialist programs and liberal programs such as income redistribution, taking away from hard working americans like myself and giving it to some lazy ass who doesn't want to work for crap.

There are relative few Americans who do not work 8 or more hours a day and the media illusion of tens of millions of people 'on the dole' is just that and meant to undermine confidence in social welfare which should in fact be one of the main reason for government. What use is government if it can not provide even person with a system by which he can gain the skills so that he may find employment that does not rob him of his life energy without reward in excess of basic survival needs? Social programs in the US is horribly mismanaged and they are so not on the lower levels but right at the top hence the resulting meager funds and effectiveness at ground level.

section 8 housing I have to pay for people to live in a brand new house living off of my tax dollars and watch them live more lavishly than myself who does well but still gets crunched sometimes.

Well clearly you are the fool for allowing your government to mismanage your hard earned money that way. I think anyone who can do nothing all day and have the state pay is pretty smart if possible short sighted ( dependence results in loss of liberty and possibly self respect) but should generally be congratulated for their success at exploiting the system better than it exploits them. Any person who actually wants to enrich another more than he enriches himself is pretty stupid and deserves much of the hardship that results from such idiocy. There exists ways and means by which no person would be required to donate more than a few hours a week towards community projects while having all basic needs looked after. Any additional work done will be towards bettering your situation as much as you might want to.

Americans work the longest hours in the industrial world and it's no accident that they are also now worse off economically than they were in 1970; hard work is meaningless if you do not know history and can not see what your employers have decided to do to you in the long run.

Stellar

staged? obviously you dont know how my government works as we have people in the government right now endorsing this and trying to get it passed, they also want to abloish the 16th amendment and right now are in the process of educating the people.

dont insult me stellar, my country is strong and will remain strong you dont even live here, american is the financial capital of the world, the government cannot stop the people from forming a petition and passing a law, if they refuse they will be removed as it would be obvious they dont have our best interests in mind and would go under trial for treason.

you base all of your asusmptions on if the american people wont stand up , the reason for outsourcing is not some government agenda its because of the taxation system which is more arcane than any other other democratic country in regards to busniesses, they have to go overseas to compete it is not some government plot only a flawed system that WILL BE adjusted, thats obsurd.

continue saying my country and the american people are weak, it only makes you out to be more foolish.


dont attempt to argue fait tax, it would reverse all of your doomsday scenarios for my country and if you do debate it, well then you would just be debating with greenspan and many other people you have constantly referenced here to back up your points of view. please dont underestimate me and my will to survive.


calling me a fool because I cannot control where my tax dollars are going? infact im attempting to fix this by supporting fair tax, some people need section 8 and some people do rely on the US government and unfortunatly alot of people abuse this system and this is a fact, yes alot of people work in the US, but alot of people also rely on the government with section 8 and welfare that are really lazy, this is a huge problem in my country dont even begin to lecture me on the current situation because i know full welll what it is, dont down play it because you have no clue what you're talking about all the way over there in cape town. insulting me by calling me foolish when i Have to pay arcane taxes to support someone who wants to rely on the government this is a reality where I live, it is a reality in europe aswell I cannot control the current tax system right now and thats why im advocating fair tax.

i suggest focusing your negativity into your own country which is even worse than my own, yet you sit here and lecture me on my own society, that is the epitomy of arrogance and ignorance.

[edit on 30-12-2006 by ape]

Originally posted by Number23
By that I mean, the people, culture, society and country is healthy, vibrant and GROWING. Russia is none of these.

To be a Superpower, you need economic power, to have that, you need a healthy, vibrant, productive and growing population. Russia is shrinking.

I think it is ridiculous to suggest that a countries population has to grow before you can call it a superpower. There are many reasons for a decrease in population. It really is totally absurd. The population is increasing very rapidly in many 3rd world cities, does that mean they are superpowers, by your definiton??? India has a huge population, but mostly in abject poverty.

I have been to Russia many times and the people are doing alot better there now than in the past, by and large. Do you know that there are more millionaires living in Moscow now than in New York? I am not going to debate if russia is a superpower or not, or what relevance that phrase means, who determines what is a superpower, but just because their population is decreasing doesn't mean they are any more or less powerful as a nation. In fact many countries populations decrease quite alot if they become more wealthy, families in more affluent countries usually have less children, get married later in life etc. You are definitely reading far too much into their population patterns.

And what do you mean Russia is shrinking??? The population is decreasing throughout western europe, but the landmass isn't decreasing.

Generally speaking the people in Russia are more healthy and vibrant now than the previous generations. And I can tell you for absolute certainty that they are alot healthier and more vibrant than your average american who is grossly over-fed on the most unhealthy junk food. Russia does take more care of the health of its people. Alot of Junk Foods are now banished from many schools and even regions in Russia, and in other eastern countries also, a stark contrast to the ugly over-weight kids we see in most schools in the west, stuffing their faces with junk.

lol ruble millionaires? haha I can bet most of them are corrupt and the mafia runs that country.

the day russia is finally showing signs of progression is when people flock to the motherland to invest and start a new life, which is something that is non existant its actually the reverse.

the fact 'junk' food is banned from russia only tells me regression, thats horrible, people have a right to eat whatveer they want.

[edit on 30-12-2006 by ape]

People should have a right to eat junk food, but you could argue people should have a right to whatever they want whenever they want. you could make exactly the same arguement to say people should be allowed to take whatever drugs they want, but Hey, in USA you aren't allowed take any drugs you wish, that is horrible and regression!!!!
fact is junk food is doing alot of damage to the system, makes you sluggish and detracts from your quality of life (feeling of wellbeing). I think it is great that they are encouraging the nation to be healthier, but obviously you think kids should do what they want. Why don't you lobby congress to permit kids to take coc aine in schools if they want to.

And what do you mean ruble millionaires??? Measureing in american dollars Moscow does have more millionaires than New York. There is huge wealth in parts of russia now. I assume you haven't been there and don't know anything about the country.
Mafia does run the country, as they do in USA, or did you not study Enron, or how the CIA control the drugs trade, etc.
And you don't know it either but there are alot of russian people returning to live in Russia now, those who have the means.

What exactly is the point of your post, was it to say we should all do as we want (The US government will strongly disagree with you there) or was it to somehow suggest that you are better than Russian people.

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Number23
It depends on what you mean by a “Superpower”. They do and will for the foreseeable future posses a large nuclear force.

And does the ability to destroy your enemies outright not make you a 'superpower' by almost any definition of the word?

However, Demographics=Destination. In simple terms, Russia is dying. Their population will crash in the coming decades and that does not a Superpower make.

So now we are making arguments in favour of human wave attacks? What does economic stability and strategic power in this modern age have to do with the number of residents in your country? Do you realise that Russia and China have formed a strategic alliance against the USA and allies and that they DO have the population base to make up for any Russian shortcomings?

You people want to talk about arms and weapons systems, when in the large stroke of history, they are practically meaningless when a country lacks a will to survive.

What do you mean lack the will to survive? The 'superpower' that currently does not posses a active National anti-ballistic missile shield is NOT Russia but in fact the USA? The country that has built up it's infrastructure so that almost it's entire population base may survive a nuclear exchange also happens to be Russia? I am sorry but according to your definition it's the US government that has no will to survive and no amount of warm bodies in that country will rectify the governments aims of undermining their own security.

So lets start the discussion then as i can see you desperately want to believe what you currently do and may very well believe it's the truth!

Stellar

Lets not just throw the word 'superpower' out just for kicks here ppl. Russia sits on a massive arsenal of WMDs sure. But can russia maintain those WMDs? No they cant. It takes alot of $$$ in order to mantain a nuclear arsenal such as russia has, some 20,000 nukes i believe. Thats the difference between america and russia. We can afford to mantain our WMD stash. Russia can not as Russias WMDs are detetirorating as we speak.

www.dhushara.com...
The link above link explains the tensness that still remains to this day between the two former advisarys. America seems to have the clear advantage in anycase.

In January 25, 1995, military technicians at a handful of kiradar stations across northern Russia saw a troubling blip suddenly appear on their screens. A rocket, launched from somewhere off the coast of Norway, was rising rapidly through the night sky. Well aware that a single missile from a U.S. submarine plying those waters could scatter eight nuclear bombs over Moscow within 15 minutes, the radar operators immediately alerted their superiors. The message passed swiftly from Russian military authorities to President Boris Yeltsin, who, holding the electronic case that could order the firing of nuclear missiles in response, hurriedly conferred by telephone with his top advisers. For the first time ever, that "nuclear briefcase" was activated for emergency use. For a few tense minutes, the trajectory of the mysterious rocket remained unknown to the worried Russian officials. Anxiety mounted when the separation of multiple rocket stages created an impression of a possible attack by several missiles. But the radar crews continued to track their targets, and after about eight minutes (just a few minutes short of the procedural deadline to respond to an impending nuclear attack), senior military officers determined that the rocket was headed far out to sea and posed no threat to Russia. The unidentified rocket in this case turned out to be a U.S. scientific probe, sent up to investigate the northern lights.

Weeks earlier the Norwegians had duly informed Russian authorities of the planned launch from the offshore island of Aiidoya, but somehow word of the high-altitude experiment had not reached the right ears. That frightening incident (like some previous false alarms that activated U.S. strategic forces) aptly demonstrates the danger of maintaining nuclear arsenals in a state of hair-trigger alert. Doing so licightens the possibility that one day someone will mistakenly launch nuclear-tipped missiles, either because of a technical failure or a human error-a mistake made, perhaps, in the rush to respond to false indications of an attack.

This is what is really worisome. Well we just started WW3 by studying the Aurora! NICE!!! I wouldt be suprised if Al Quada has nukes right now. Alls they would have to do is go to russia and get the right mob boss and if the $$$ is right im sure they could get there greasy little hands on a nuke from russia. That country is being run by mobs today. Ever heard the saying, Thirdworld power dressed in superpower clothing? Thats what russia is right now. A 3rd world power who has the toys of a superpower.

And china? Dont make me laugh. China wouldnt side with russia in a nuclear exchange because china needs the US to buy all there crappy toys for economic benefit. If the US were to fall the EU (chinas largest customer) would lose theyre largest trading partner (the US) What do you think happens to china if china were to lose both of there largest customers? What do you think would happen to the interdependant world economy? As of 2003 estimates, the US made up 21.6% GWP (gross world product) The EU 21.4%. And china 12%GWP. The world economy would collapse if america would fall. So you shouldnt get such a hard on when talking about such serious yet unlikely scenarios. Lets face it, The world needs america more then they dont need it. And once the Fairtax goes through, the world economy will become more and more dependant on the american economy. It will put an end to the china supermacy crap talk. And will finally shut up all the american bashers who think the US economy is on its final footing.


[edit on 043131p://1612pm by semperfoo]