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

the mafia does not run the US you're out of touch.

people have the right to eat whatever they want man, having laws that prevent this is fascists and very commie like, have you ever heard of personal responsibility?? I dont need the government taking responsibility of what i eat, I have a right to choose if I want to gorge myself with twinkies and beer after I just got a bonus but of course I will take it to the hills the next morning and run it off.

what a flawed system, totally regressive, drugs have nothing to do with this conversation thats a horrible example we are talking about food here. taing away ones right to eat some ice cream or a twinkie or a twix bar is horribly twisted beyond all belief. yeah I can see people just flocking to russia to get in better shape!!.

secondly in russia the wealthy and the poor are seperated by a huge gap that is corrupt, mafia controlled money and iron fist like dominance by putin, having people assasignated for expressing freedom of speech.



[edit on 30-12-2006 by ape]

Originally posted by StellarX
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?

And I just want to touch up on a few things here that i didnt in my last post. There are over 700,000,000 impoverished chinese. An estimated 300,000,000 drink unsafe and cataminated water. And that my friend is a conservative estimate. Many of the residents burn stoves and furnaces with unrefined coal and live in toxic pollutants that cause widespread respiratory problems and dirty everything in sight. Aids is running rampant throughout the chinese country side and is infecting tens of thousands of chinese every year. Said another way, china has to many problems with its own population, to yet alone worry about russias declining population.



[edit on 043131p://1112pm by semperfoo]

[edit on 043131p://1212pm by semperfoo]

great points semper. I just love how people mindlessly bash the US like me and you and every other aware citizen wont do anything about our situation, yo man have you signed the petition on the fair tax site? im gonna set up also to donate them some funds, gives me good piece of mind.

sign up and give your location they will put you on the petiton and they will inform your local representative. =)

1 step towards another american century.

[edit on 30-12-2006 by ape]

Originally posted by ape
great points semper. I just love how people mindlessly bash the US like me and you and every other aware citizen wont do anything about our situation, yo man have you signed the petition on the fair tax site? im gonna set up also to donate them some funds, gives me good piece of mind.

sign up and give your location they will put you on the petiton and they will inform your local representative. =)

1 step towards another american century.

[edit on 30-12-2006 by ape]

Its the baseless claims that really crack me up. Like china and russia(who happen to be third worlders) are somehow superior in every facet to America.. HAH! It really flaws there own arguments. Its just not true.

They have more problems then we do here in America. america is far from perfect. And I admit that. And we do have our own problems. But it isnt near as bad as those hell holes.

It just goes to show the blindful biases that feeds these anti-americans. Well they should be done for the day since they got there "I hate america" drivel out of the way.

I havent signed the petition yet. Thanks for the headsup .
Im going do that right now!

And good for you man. We need to get the word out.



[edit on 073131p://1212pm by semperfoo]

As an American I'll give my input. To start off I love my country, and at the moment I don't think I'd choose any other place on Earth to live in the long term. But that's not to say that I wouldn't want to spend some time in other places, get to see how other countries do things, and maybe learn how I can better my own country while helping them to better theirs. The USA like any nation has a huge share of problems, as does Russia, China, and all the various EU nations.

So I'm going to ask that everyone stops bashing other's respective nations and stop trumping up your own like it's invincible. Ape, you in particular are bothering me since you're making my country look very bad on an international community. I'm with you on wanting to make this country better (although I do disagree on how exactly to do it), but as Americans we have a responsibility to present ourselves to the world in a respectable manner.

Now back on to Russia's power. Their declining population is most definatley a bad thing in the short run as currently their military does depend on using large numbers. However Russia has shown that it does have the potential to make high quality weaponry and equipment. Their lowering population may force them to manufacture and use higher quality equipment while their rising GNP may actually allow them to afford such a doctrine within twenty years or so assuming the Russian econony continues to grow.

At the moment I'd say that there's no doubt Russia is a force to be reckoned with. Maybe they're not as powerful as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pack was, but that doesn't mean that they should ever be underestimated. My estimate is that Russia could probably win a war against just about any nation on earth except for a select few. Those select few including China and the US would probably wind up at at stalemate with Russia. It's a matter of the US is probably the only one that still has the global deployment capabilities to put substantial amounts of troops near Russia, but the Russian defense is infamous for a reason. It's a very large, and very deadly expanse of land that has proven to be very difficult to invade. If you thought Iraq was nasty you'd probably faint upon giving a realistic thought about trying to invade Mother Russia. Thus although their global offensive capabilities seem to have declined since the fall of the USSR, their defensive advantage is still extremely strong.

The nuclear arsenal on the otherhand may be slightly out of date, but at the moment no nation on Earth can intercept it. Currently the US is the only one that's putting serious work into a missile shield (publicly at least), and we're years away from having an effective land based shield. Currently the USN has a project going that's proven to be highly successful so far, but that's really just a prototype at the moment. So I'd say the Russian nuclear arsenal is still just as good. Although to be honest it's a bit irrelavant since I feel that MAD would prevent this arsenal from ever needing to be used.

hey if you dont like what im saying then ignore me, what exactly is your proposal other than what im assuming you dont agree with which is the fair tax? this site is hardcore anti american misinformation galore, im going to adress it any way I feel is needed because obviously these people dont respect me or my country, quite frankly I really dont care what they think about me, worry about yourself buddy. I'm not going to be talked down to by a bunch of people who dont live or know the first thing about our country so please grow some courage.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
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.

I do not agree with the "significant advantage" line, however Russia is without a doubt very efficient economically when it comes to defense. It's nice that the US has high tech toys but it would certainly behoove the US to learn efficient defense acquisitioning from their Russian counterparts. (sans the corruption that happens on both sides)

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

Just as a point of reference we have less than 2 dozen billion dollar planes.

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

To think that the US is unwilling to spend money in war would be a grave mistake for any potential enemy - War is money, war significantly boosts industry and the economy.
Raytheon, my former employer has expanded to over 55,000 employees since 2001.

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?

Good point, but low tech defense will get you hung outside the green zone (as in Saddam Hussein)
It would be improper to think of Russia as a low tech military.

Also the days of food shortages and soup and bread lines in Russia are over - They are operating within their budget, the country has no debt and is quickly becoming one of Europe's major energy suppliers.

I have met Russians on tour through some of our high tech facilities and they are acutely aware and knowledgeable of the technologies that they see.

I would not want to live in Russia, and I'm not a proponent of Russian hardware or technology but they are not a 3rd world country anymore and yes, they are a Superpower.

Alas, a double post....

[edit on 12-31-2006 by intelgurl]

Originally posted by ape
hey if you dont like what im saying then ignore me, what exactly is your proposal other than what im assuming you dont agree with which is the fair tax? this site is hardcore anti american misinformation galore, im going to adress it any way I feel is needed because obviously these people dont respect me or my country, quite frankly I really dont care what they think about me, worry about yourself buddy. I'm not going to be talked down to by a bunch of people who dont live or know the first thing about our country so please grow some courage.

I could ignore you, but that's not how I operate. Just read my sig, ignorance isn't my bag. My proposal for fixing the country is pretty much doing away with outsourcing (my disagreement is on flat tax) and improving our educational system. As for this site being all anti-American misinformation, you'll find that most of the hardcore anti-Americans on here don't stick around for too long. Most of the veterans around here are very understanding people who may disagree with our government's policies but they do respect the American people. But they do tend to get a little pissy when you get a bit nationalistic.



And now back on to topic I just got the World Almanac 2007 edition for X-mas so I'm going to post some of the figures

Russia's active forces are 5th in the world with 1,037,000 soldiers (compared to the USA's 1,474,00 and China's 2,255). That may not seem like a lot once you compare it to it's southern neighbor, but it has by far the most reserve troops in the world with 20,000,000 (which is 7.1% of Russia's estimated 142,000,000 people according to the same almanac). This means that a substantial portion of the Russian population will be armed with at least an AK-47 and will most definatley fight with it in the event of invasion. And that's just their official military, if WWII is any indication then I'd expect millions upon millions more to fight with whatever they had in the event of an invasion.

As if their infantry numbers weren't shocking enough when you took reserves into account, it also says here that Russia has roughly 22,800+ MBT's in their army (US has 7,620+ and China has 7,580+). That's not including any other armored vehicles they may have and does not include any they might have in their marines.

And they're maintaining that on a budget of 61.9 billion dollars (China with 62.5 bil and the US with an incredible 465 bil) with more stuff being manufactured each day. So in terms of economic efficency I'd give them very high marks, especially with their ability to maintain older equipment for long periods of time.

well just to inform you fair tax is not a flat tax, fair tax would solve outsourcing which is currently taking place because of our domestic tax policies.

russia does not exert influence to major countries and I certainly do not see people flocking over to that country to live, I also dont see them projecting any kind of force and waving nukes in peoples faces will only get you so far.

[edit on 31-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 31-12-2006 by ape]

Yes its true russia has a lot of tanks, but if the USA kept its M60 Pattons and updated Shermans in service like russia keeps its T-55s and up in service that I would bet the USA would have 20,000+ tanks in service as well. How many of those russian tanks are T-80+? How many are T-90+? (this is not an attack I would really like to know)

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Yes its true russia has a lot of tanks, but if the USA kept its M60 Pattons and updated Shermans in service like russia keeps its T-55s and up in service that I would bet the USA would have 20,000+ tanks in service as well.

So why don't you go do some counting and general comparison between those two tank types and come report to us who would have benefited most by the US choosing to do that? Remember that those are only the operational tanks or those in depo's or near term storage; the rest of the tanks are as far as i understand still in storage all over Russia...

How many of those russian tanks are T-80+? How many are T-90+? (this is not an attack I would really like to know)

Not very many but the Russian T-64's and T-72's are both more than able to take on modern western tanks under European conditions... They are upgrading their older tanks with both passive and active armor and plenty of other interesting devices that make their age not all that relevant.

Once you start reading ( believing what you hear on TV does not count and if you can't remember ever studying a particular issue don't comment on it before you do ) open source material from both western and Russian defense journals it quickly becomes obvious that it's almost always the public that has this very skewed perception of Russian equipment.

Stellar

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
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?

You disprove your own point.
All the systems you mention are those of a nation that is struggling with power projection.

The US has carriers to control foreign airspace and protect transports.
The US has expensive aircraft so that it can strike anywhere in the world.

If you can't afford an air force, then you attempt aerial denial with air defense.
If you can't afford a navy, then you attempt denial of the seaways.

I'm not being negative towards Russia. If they are above sticking there nose everywhere then good for them. I just think compared to the 80's, their military reflects a nation withdrawn from power projection.

BTW your trying to sell us a Yugo like it's a Bentley.

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

yeah thats accurate, because the US just deploys carriers without battlegroups to compliment them and safeguard them in battle?? first of all any missile system that is in range of any aircraft carrier would be taken out before the carrier group even arrives, subs wont even make it close.

i suggest you take a good read en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ape

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

yeah thats accurate, because the US just deploys carriers without battlegroups to compliment them and safeguard them in battle?? first of all any missile system that is in range of any aircraft carrier would be taken out before the carrier group even arrives, subs wont even make it close.

i suggest you take a good read en.wikipedia.org...

you better read about shkval torpedoes, that battle group wouldn't help, trust me.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Oplot84
you better read about shkval torpedoes, that battle group wouldn't help, trust me.
en.wikipedia.org...

You do realise that the Shkval is unguided right? It does not yet have a seeker to my knowledge and is considered a "revenge weapon" designed to fire back at the bearing of incoming enemy torpedos. While it is amazing(the speed at which it moves underwater), I dont see this weapon changing the Naval balance of power between Russia and the US.

Russias previous endeavor with an underwater missile like this were aimed at using it as a countermeasure to fire back at the bearing of an incoming torpedo in hopes of making the attacking sub change course and snap the guidance wires on their own torpedo. A great idea really. But its not classified as an offensive weapon.

However, they are trying to employ a guided version that would go out of the tube at the same high speed, then slow to search out its target. As guiding a missile at that speed underwater toward a target would be very difficult I would imagine, but I'm no physics expert. This is just what I've come to understand from the link. If it were employed with a successful guidance system, then I would consider it a weapon to be feared. Until then, I see it as a testbed for future supercavitating weapons.

BA-111 Shkval

[edit on 1/4/2007 by ludaChris]

Originally posted by ludaChris

Originally posted by Oplot84
you better read about shkval torpedoes, that battle group wouldn't help, trust me.
en.wikipedia.org...

You do realise that the Shkval is unguided right? It does not yet have a seeker to my knowledge and is considered a "revenge weapon" designed to fire back at the bearing of incoming enemy torpedos. While it is amazing(the speed at which it moves underwater), I dont see this weapon changing the Naval balance of power between Russia and the US.

Russias previous endeavor with an underwater missile like this were aimed at using it as a countermeasure to fire back at the bearing of an incoming torpedo in hopes of making the attacking sub change course and snap the guidance wires on their own torpedo. A great idea really. But its not classified as an offensive weapon.

However, they are trying to employ a guided version that would go out of the tube at the same high speed, then slow to search out its target. As guiding a missile at that speed underwater toward a target would be very difficult I would imagine, but I'm no physics expert. This is just what I've come to understand from the link. If it were employed with a successful guidance system, then I would consider it a weapon to be feared. Until then, I see it as a testbed for future supercavitating weapons.

BA-111 Shkval

[edit on 1/4/2007 by ludaChris]

actially the original version of it was unguided... new version of it is guided.


A prototype of the modernised "Shkval", which was exhibited at the 1995 international armaments show in Abu Dhabi, was discarded. An improved model was designed with a conventional (non-nuclear) warhead and a guided targeting system, which substantially enhances its combat effectiveness. The first tests of the modernised Shkval torpedo were held by the Russian Pacific Fleet in the spring of 1998.

The 'Region' Scientific Production Association has developed developed an export modification of the missile, 'Shkval-E'. Russia began marketing this conventionally armed version of the Shkval high-speed underwater rocket at the IDEX 99 exhibition in Abu Dhabi in early 1999. The concept of operations for this missile requires the crew of a submarine, ship or the coast guard define the target's parameters -- speed, distance and vector -- and feeds the data to the missile's automatic pilot. The missile is fired, achieves its optimum depth and switches on its engines. The missile does not have a homing warhead and follows a computer-generated program.

www.globalsecurity.org... source

Originally posted by ape
the mafia does not run the US you're out of touch.
[edit on 30-12-2006 by ape]

Yes they do, they even occupy the position of President and Vice President of the USA, they also control the CIA, FBI etc.

www.serendipity.li...

Originally posted by semperfoo
Its the baseless claims that really crack me up. Like china and russia(who happen to be third worlders) are somehow superior in every facet to America.. HAH! It really flaws there own arguments. Its just not true.

Well they are not third world countries and i am not sure who here suggested that they are somehow 'superior' places to want to make a living in?

They have more problems then we do here in America. america is far from perfect. And I admit that. And we do have our own problems. But it isnt near as bad as those hell holes.

And who knows how large those problems would have been today without western intervention in China resulting in the destruction of so much of that country? What would have happened in Russia ( there is good work suggesting that the German general staff knew they had to undermine Russia in some way or be left behind) in the early part of the century if not for the devastation visited on it by the wall street Rockefeller backed coup that resulted in what we today call communism? How bad are their problems today and how much of those problems were self inflicted? These things are often forgotten when people talk about what a great place the US is never mentioning what it has done to the rest of the world.

It just goes to show the blindful biases that feeds these anti-americans.

Not anti-America as much as anti-American national security state. Why always assume that people hate Americans and not those who do not even represent their interest? Do you think the current Administration ( or the one before) did ANYTHING to further the interest of American citizens? Maybe some education will fix that and until you get some i suggest you lay off assuming motives for others.

Well they should be done for the day since they got there "I hate america" drivel out of the way.

I don't even hate the current American rulers as hate is very much wasted on such people. I have nothing against the American public as they have been used and abused just about as much as other empires abused their own citizens.

I havent signed the petition yet. Thanks for the headsup

.
Im going do that right now!

And good for you man. We need to get the word out.

Please go to Ron Paul's website and notice him saying very clearly that there is no support for economic reform in the US senate.

Stellar

Originally posted by semperfoo
And I just want to touch up on a few things here that i didnt in my last post. There are over 700,000,000 impoverished chinese.

Define 'impoverished' in terms of living conditions for the massive majority of the worlds citizens.

An estimated 300,000,000 drink unsafe and cataminated water.

Any of them being deliberately poisoned buy their government by the introduction of a known toxin such as Fluoride?

And that my friend is a conservative estimate.

Which conservatives are we talking about here?

Many of the residents burn stoves and furnaces with unrefined coal and live in toxic pollutants that cause widespread respiratory problems and dirty everything in sight.

But yet they still manage to live on average to the age of 72 against the US average of 77? Maybe we could all do with pollution and filthy air? Please don't assume so much based on the few things you have heard others say about China.

Aids is running rampant throughout the chinese country side and is infecting tens of thousands of chinese every year.

The US have more people living with AIDS than China does and one wonders how AIDS could spread anywhere by the way so commonly assumed. Why not more studying before you assume any more myths as truth?

Said another way, china has to many problems with its own population, to yet alone worry about russias declining population.

And for the conditions imposed ( by outside forces) on both of those populations i think there is more positive to say about them than there is about the US but that is really just opinion now.

Stellar