I provided five links per single post.
I've done nothing? Proved nothing?
Fine, for the third, fourth time, I'll look at his argument and disprove.
Before I do -- Do tell, what is going on? Simply saying he's right, it must be assumed you mean in all things. Well, your blank assertions,
especially from such a new, and erego, relatively unqualified user mean little.
Hell, if he thinks I'm Rogue1, I could much more easily believe you, are INeedHelp.
The Russians currently have 16000 nuclear warheads.
[7,200 actually operational]
[Russia's number is inflated due to failure to dismantle weapons.]
[Russian nuclear-navy is falling apart, poor
numbers. Actual tests of missiles fail miserably.]
[Written by -the- nuclear organization within Russia. Enormous debt, internal structure
[An amateur article, though with a variety of discussions on Russia's
1) will soon shift its Black Sea fleet to the Med (this fleet will be shifted to Syria)
I never argued the strength of the Black Sea Fleet, historically, or what it could potentially be now. Despite being fractured, I respect that Russia
wants to relocate here. The argument I stated? With what? The small percentage of Russia's navy that receives even the most modest funding, and which
can leave its docks, and where the crew receives regular experience, or training, is about nil.
Is it a strategic location? Yes.
Could it's impact be significant? Yes.
Does Russia have the forces to place in that region, in order to properly achieve that strength? No.
And INeedHelp's argument against me was saying that I denied its importance. Two, or three times he did this. He never counter-acted my argument,
simply kept attacking me on an issue I all-ready acknowledged as true.
2) controls the Transnistria
He never acknowledged the strategic value of this place. I didn't care to deal with it -- Though when we factor in that the trasnistria is currently
trying to be independent, he cannot claim 'Russia will have full control'. Perhaps a friendly access, though not full control.
3) supports Iran and North Korea, both of which threaten the West
North Korea is hardly a threat. They achieved Nuclear Weapons -- Which, might I remind you, they've never proven to have, only the capability to
improperly blow radioactive material miles high -- in order to detair a US. threat. The actual use of such a weapons would be a quick end to all of
North Korea. It's more of an active thorn in the side of our political stance than an actual threat.
Furthermore, Iran can hardly be argued a threat. They're being as much a trouble as they have the capability for right now, training and arming
insurgents. If it came to a conventional war, one in where we have no pressing desire to occupy, Iran would be 'erased from the pages of time'. Much
as they figure Israel should be.
4) has more theatre bombers than the US
So, even bombers that Russia claims 'as its own' are being decommissioned and thrown away. While I couldn't find multiple matching statistics on
the theatre bombers for both side, I'm going to make an argument using general logic.
a. U.S. bombers and Russian bombers, in general, were roughly equal, with a slight swing towards the Russian side.
b. The combination of poor funding, poor training, and generally out-dated designs defines the Russian forces as being of worse quality.
c. Because both country's deploy extremely advanced anti-air systems, quantity is not the argument here, but quality.
d. The B2, though in low-numbers, is the only aircraft relatively guarenteed to penetrate airspace, with nuclear-weapons, and deploy said weapons
The Russians control most of the world
a. This was entirley disproven through both logic, and sources, and his later 'redefinition' of 'deployed' troops, wherein he even disagreed with
his own given statistics by ~20%.
a. Basic economics disagrees with him.
b. Russia is dependent on the income.
c. Multiple links given by myself and others towards evidence disagreeing with his stance.
d. His argument was almost entirely flawed logic and 'his own evidence', failing to be backed up.
If that's not all the points of contention he made, simply post the others. I'm not going to go through each page and cross-apply what I've
all-ready pasted, or what he simply restated.
Furthermore, most of these were disproved through links, by other users. So if my argument fails to persuade you, simply read back to the posts
immediately following his.
Lastly, let's leave 'geophysical weapons' out of this. Supplementing a real-world strategic discussion with a conspiracy-weapon makes the point
moot. That's much the same as me saying, 'The U.S. have the gray's weapons! They'd win!' Is the example a bit more fantastic? Yes. Is it still
'cheap', and not qualified for the current topic? Yep.