Russian Nuclear Posture superior to the US's?

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   
may i ask one simple question?

who cares if the US has better nukes then russia
who cares if Russia has better nukes then the USA

either way everyone is fudged?
both countries blow the planet up x times over

so whats the whole point of this topic? apart from we have more then you?




posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
Wow.. HAHA This thread is laughable.. Russia controls the world?


No one controls the world but some certainly have great powers over their fellows.


HAHA good one. Just because terrorist along with other third world organizations have access to Kalashnikov's doesnt count as world domination...


No one suggested it did.


In another thread Ive got this stellar guy claiming outlandish claims (because russia has nothing in its conventional military worth a damn so he must make up ones)


That's your opinion but it's stocks off conventional weaponry is not obsolete by any means. Since you do nothing but ignore evidence there is not much i can do but disagree with your unsupported claims.


that russia has geophysical weapons that they have used on the US before (katrina) and will continue to use on the US which gives them some unknown supremacy over all of our hitech inventory,


If one can point out to some other country that would seek to use the geophysical weapons secretary Cohen referred to against the US feel but but until then you should real work from the assumption that the country with such vast nuclear and conventional forces can use such as a cover for deploying even greater weapons.


and now we got some guy here who thinks just because russia has 17,000 troops in former soviet blocs, Russia 'must' control the whole damn planet...


I have posted a large volume of links suggesting/showing that they are in fact in political control of all or most of their former colonies. I know you just ignore what you do not want to consider so here they are again.


reformed-theology.org...

www.sierratimes.com...

www.thefinalphase.com...

www.markriebling.com...

www.stoptheftaa.org...

www.jbs.org...

www.jbs.org...

www.jbs.org...

www.jbs.org...

www.jbs.org...


And this isnt even accounting for his overstatements that Russia has a 'the world by the balls' because of its abundant yet dwindling natural resources..


Last i checked Russian exports in most resources were growing/recovering from their slump in the 90's and i see no physical reason why they will not reach or surpass those levels in the cases they did not already.


Hey pal.. Europe does not equal the entire world. Remember that next time.
That is all.


Whoever gains control of Europe has a good chance of controlling the world and that seems quite obvious by the control European banking/royal families seems to have achieved.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
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.

en.wikipedia.org... [7,200 actually operational]
www.armscontrol.org... [Russia's number is inflated due to failure to dismantle weapons.]
www.bellona.org... [Russian nuclear-navy is falling apart, poor numbers. Actual tests of missiles fail miserably.]
www.fas.org... [Written by -the- nuclear organization within Russia. Enormous debt, internal structure failing.]
www.uiowa.edu... [An amateur article, though with a variety of discussions on Russia's failing forces.]



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
www.fas.org...
www.nti.org...
www.nti.org...
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.
Leading to:
d. The B2, though in low-numbers, is the only aircraft relatively guarenteed to penetrate airspace, with nuclear-weapons, and deploy said weapons effectively.

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%.

Energy exporter
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.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
No one controls the world but some certainly have great powers over their fellows.


I dont necessarily disagree...



No one suggested it did.

I was being sarcastic...




If one can point out to some other country that would seek to use the geophysical weapons secretary Cohen referred to against the US feel but but until then you should real work from the assumption that the country with such vast nuclear and conventional forces can use such as a cover for deploying even greater weapons.


Which country are you referring to here?



I have posted a large volume of links suggesting/showing that they are in fact in political control of all or most of their former colonies. I know you just ignore what you do not want to consider so here they are again.


I never contested that. I was merely pointing out that just because you have 17,000 troops located in former soviet blocs that it does not make you in control of the world.





Last i checked Russian exports in most resources were growing/recovering from their slump in the 90's and i see no physical reason why they will not reach or surpass those levels in the cases they did not already.


Agian, didnt mean to imply otherwise. Just pointing out that that alone wont control the world. Russia couldnt successfully cut off countrys because that in essence would be cutting russias own throat.



Whoever gains control of Europe has a good chance of controlling the world and that seems quite obvious by the control European banking/royal families seems to have achieved.

Stellar


Now come on stellar... You just contradicted yourself. First you say "No one controls the world but some certainly have great powers over their fellows." which I agree with to a degree, but then you go on to say the above?..


[edit on 073030p://3304pm by semperfoo]



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
may i ask one simple question?


Presuming it's simple and not just due to you not having read a thing on this thread.


who cares if the US has better nukes then russia


You should...


who cares if Russia has better nukes then the USA


Since they will be falling on your head once again i imagine you should care at least a little bit...


either way everyone is fudged?


If you have no shelter space, no food and a government who is openly inviting disaster half or more of the American population might be dead within weeks...


both countries blow the planet up x times over


Not at all true as some reading on this thread would show you.


so whats the whole point of this topic? apart from we have more then you?


The fact that nuclear wars are quite survivable and not just for individuals but for nations. Next time please read some of a given threads content before asking questions that have been addressed.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by INeedHelp
I am not wrong, as I have proven myself right. Anyone who doesn't believe me can simply read my posts. Any intelligent person who will do so will know you are wrong. I do not wish to debate with you any longer, having already disproven you, because I must simply study. Unlike you, I'm not a kid who enjoys 8 hours of free time everyday.


LOL, it seems everyone who reads your posts disagrees with you. Yes you must study and keep studying until you understand what you are actually trying to talk about.


I have disproven you, replying to every ridiculous statement you have written. The evidence I used to disprove you were websites whose webmasters have honestly written what Russia is like, and how important pipelines are.


You still don't have any clue. Your statements are irrational and illogical, as many have pointed out. you haven't proven how Russia somehow controls the world, you just don't get it. Then you go and make things up.



They have written about disruptions, which happened because Russian pipelines are used by the Ukrainians, the Czechs, the Austrians, and the Germans alike, so if, for example, the Ukrainians argue with the Russians, then the Ukrainians aren't the only nation that suffers. You, however, have written nothing more than insults.


And these few countries you mention equal the whole word ? explain that one too us, we are all stillw waiting. And yes I have written many things showing up your ignorance. You don't seem to reply, maybe because you don't understand even though it is very simple even for you.


I've read all of your replies and I must inform you that you've failed to write a post that would disprove me. Proof is only proof if it proves you write. Insults and sentences like "You are wrong!" don't.


I believe everything I have written disproves what you claim. As I have said previously get out an atlas, have a look. You know what an atlas is ? I don't have to post links to websites because what I write is common knowledge, it is you who cant seem to understand the basics.


The sentences you have written are all either offensive or illogical, and none of them proves you right. No honest person would call you a knowledgeable person.


Hmm
I believe everyone agrees with me, they all seem to think you are the one who is sadly lacking in knowledge, especially when you start to make things up to strengthen your argument.



I didn't surrender. I have disproven you and Rogue1. I don't care whether you will learn or will continue to naively think that the Russians aren't dangerous. I have disproven you, and afterwards I said I won't be debating with you until at least the exams are over.


LOL, you haven't dis proven a single thing I've said, all you do is repeat your same statements, you lack a depth of knowledge.

PS. Exams ? for kindergarten, since when ?

[edit on 18-4-2007 by rogue1]



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
Which country are you referring to here?


The only country that deployed sufficient strategic weapons to protect itself while shifting to these new types of weaponry is/was the USSR.



I never contested that. I was merely pointing out that just because you have 17,000 troops located in former soviet blocs that it does not make you in control of the world.


Agreed....


Agian, didnt mean to imply otherwise. Just pointing out that that alone wont control the world. Russia couldnt successfully cut off countrys because that in essence would be cutting russias own throat.


Russian has sufficient strategic reserves of currency and gold to close down the gas to Europe that will seriously hurt Europe but also force them into alternative energy markets and lead to a public backlash that they do not want while cultivating the image of a new Russia. So i doubt they will close to lines for long and if they do it will be blamed on 'terrorist' or some kind of accident that just happened to coincide with their threats.
I think 2006 gave us good material to work with as the Russians did play hardball when pressed.


Now come on stellar... You just contradicted yourself.


As if you would notice something like that before i did!


First you say "No one controls the world but some certainly have great powers over their fellows." which I agree with to a degree, but then you go on to say the above?..


I do not believe that perfect control is possible ( as is implied by 'controls the world' ;even i am careful when dealing with such grand claims) but that the level of control can in fact be quite tremendous as is in my opinion the case for those European banking families. Russia is in my opinion now creating the situations that these families have to deal with or respond to but that does not in my opinion mean that they are any less dangerous or able to exact a telling revenge on Russia if pressed too far too quickly.

You might ask where American stands in all this and i will answer that it serves but as the sword of these powerful European families and groups. It's people may retain great freedoms but in my opinion largely because they do not seriously impede the operation of the the US foreign policy to suppress freedom and destroy those who refuse to keep their heads down.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Well teh SS-N-8 wth a 2km CEP would havbugger all effect as well.


It's 1 km and with 0.6 MT ( or more) bursting at either 1 km, 2km or 3km would not alter the destruction levels significantly when your close enough to tenders or harbour to reload in days.


According to who ? America has always had a technological edge over the SOviets.


Those 'always' claims have always bothered me and in the arena of submarine warfare there is only so much you can do. Quiting boats is great if it does not detract from force numbers but relying on stealth when engagement exposes you is not in my opinion the critical factor in a strategic war.


The Soviets built junk as can be evidenced from teh November Class SSN's which irradiated their crew, due to improper shielding. they were also extremely noisy.


Please do give us the sources of just exactly how 'dangerous' this 'irradiation' in fact was. Do you know that low dosages of radiation have marked health benefits? Also feel free to explain to me why the US navy always had such trouble finding submarines in the first place and if the noisy November could not have made twice or three times as much noise without being detected under wartime conditions.


LMAO, what you think teh Soviets hunted in wolfpacks ? If the Soviet subs had been packed so tightly they would hvae been decimated by NATO ASW forces, such as the P-3


The history record shows that NATO ( and certainly not US forces had very little in the way of ASW capability and had to largely rely on the Canadians and others to 'help' out in even the regional conflicts in engaged in.


At that time, we were not ready for war. Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, former Navy Chief of Operations, said at the Australian Naval Institute Seminar in February, 1979: “It is the professional judgment of senior officials in the United States that our Navy has only a 35% probability of winning a conventional naval war against the Soviet Union. Our military knows this, and so does theirs. About the only people who do not know it are the general public in the United States and Australia. Nor do they know that a nuclear exchange in 1981 on present trends would result in about 160 million dead in the United States.”

www.the7thfire.com...
a_and_End_of_Communism.html



“Our ASW capabilities can best be described as poor or weak…” – Vice Admiral John Grossenbacher, US Navy, 2002

"ASW officers and enlisted men are more often treated like the Rodney Dangerfields of the air wing. They get no respect…” – George C. Wilson, onboard the USS John F. Kennedy

It is also well known that the cantankerous Late Admiral Hyman Rickover, US Navy (Retired) did not think much of his own carrier-centered navy. When asked in 1982 about how long the American carriers would survive in an actual war, he curtly constated that they would be finished in approximately 48 hours. Former President Jimmy Carter, a former US Navy officer, and Annapolis graduate, was also none too keen on the big carrier Navy, either. Vistica mentioned that Carter did not want any more new carriers, and for the existing fleet to be cut dramatically.

he atypically unreticent and plainspoken submarine commander, Captain John Byron, US Navy (Retired) also intimated in the early 1980s that American nuclear submarines had little difficulty operating against carriers. “Operating against a carrier is too easy,” he quipped. “The carrier’s ASW protection often resembles Swiss cheese.” In a 1985 exercise in the Pacific, this was confirmed when one US nuclear submarine sank two aircraft carriers and eight other ships, and as per standard operating procedure, these painful results "were never publicly disclosed."

www.g2mil.com...

www.transasianaxis.com...


And the list really goes on and it tends to show that USN ASW abilities were largely illusory around the times we are discussing. What i have read suggests strongly to me that the Soviet surface forces were more than adequate to create the conditions that would have destroyed any coordinated ASW from taking place and that the resulting confusion and attrition would have allowed even the 'noisy' ( which is once again not on the level where it prevented Soviet submarines from effectively operating) Russian nuclear boats to become effective. The large Soviet diesel submarine forces were obviously always a threat when staging ambushes and considering the vital nature of Atlantic sea routes to the NATO forces there is not much that could be done to avoid them. "Wolf packs' in the days of RORSAT and the like is certainly quite easy and the Soviet deployed a wide range of satellites that would have enabled efficiency tracking of Atlantic traffic.


But you said more accurate, more bluster from you I guess. All websited quote more accuracy from GPS than GLONASS.


That is not what the websites i quoted said and it's no wonder you can not find the truth for yourself.


The system offers a standard C/A positioning and timing service giving horizontal position accuracy within 180 feet (55 meters) and vertical position within 230 feet (70 meters) based on measurements from four satellite signals. P is a more accurate signal for Russian military use.

There are very few inexpensive GLONASS-only receivers for consumers on the market. However, commercial GPS receivers often are capable of receiving both NAVSTAR and GLONASS data.

This GLONASS system provides accuracy that is better than GPS with SA on and worse than GPS with SA off.

www.spacetoday.org...


As quoted from my previous post...


Comparative Overview of GPS and GLONASS

A comparative overview of GPS and GLONASS is apropos before proceeding.
GPS and the Russian GLONASS system have some similarities and some
substantial differences as well. While GPS space vehicles operate with one L1
frequency for the entire constellation, GLONASS satellites each have their own
discrete frequency. The frequency allocation scheme for GLONASS, which
employs the Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA) technique, is 1602 +

K(0.5625) MHz , where K = the frequency channel number. Each GLONASS
satellite is identified by a unique orbital slot number.
Another difference between the two SATNAV systems is that the Russian
government does not implement a policy of signal degradation on the L1
frequency. Hence, the stand alone accuracy of a GLONASS receiver is
measurably better than that of a CA Code GPS receiver. L1 GLONASS rms
accuracy is about 16 meters; L1 GPS is 100 meters rms with SA on

pro.magellangps.com...


Since we do not know the capability of the Russian military signal it's impossible to say which is in fact best and why i said that's what i remember.

From the other source


The navigational signals transmitted by the satellites are received by GLONASS-receivers. These receivers determine object’s position by the method of received signals’ triangulation. Used by the civil marines the code allows determine position of an object with the accuracy up to 50 - 70 meters. In the mode of usual access the GLONASS system exceeds the GPS system in accuracy, at the same time providing opportunity for operation in areas of higher latitudes.

www.dkart.ru...


So unless you wish to attempt proving that Glonass on military mode is more accurate or less accurate than GPS without restrictive mode please stop calling me names based entirely on misrepresentations and lies.


But you really hvae no odea, just your typical supposition.


They do have a selective use and once again your the one who don't want to consider or think when it might upset what you have already decided to believe without checking the facts.


Exactly you don't hvae any information, please go and look. Obviously you already hvae and have found nothing otherwise we could expect a torrent of cut and pastes from you.


It may not take many minutes to type up your vapid responses in attack of the evidence i present but i can assure you it frequently takes me hours or days to marshal the evidence that you dismiss without apparent consideration. I probably have a a few references somewhere but if i do find the time to go look it wont be because you asked but because others might be open minded enough to consider it.


No you weren't at all, you were tlaking about ICBM blast damage which you were completely wrong.


Since your the one making the accusations again feel free to quote the selected parts and what i fact claimed about what. I talked about both issues and you are in fact simply misrepresenting my words.


Gee how surprising repeating exactly what I said. Thnaks for the backup but not needed, I know my stuff.


Please quote from previous posts what you in fact said as i am well aware of what you claimed and did not. You do need correction and you do not seem to know much beside the most widely propagandized versions of reality which on closer inspection rarely relate to reality as investigation reveals to be.


Of course you have much more reliable secret inforamtion ....LOL.


It might have been secret at some point but since i use only online defense and intelligence sources it's either been declassified or never were classified. Why do you think the truth must always be whatever the media chose to spread as fact?


Actiually it would cover the northern hemisphere within a day or 2.


Covering yes but since that's in high altitude jet stream is quite inconsequential to us and specifically so when we properly prepare by ensuring shelter space and adequate food supplies.


[edit on 29-4-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   

LOl it doesn't. It explodes in the and not when it hits the ground, hence air-burst, you can understand English ?


I understand English well enough to understand that you do not even know what a air-bursting a nuclear warhead entails. Air bursting is simply when the fireball does not touch the ground and does not suggest much other than that.


LOL once again you critisize your own posts.


And when i think i did not make my points clear or want to add to it , or even correct, that is what i might do.


You just stated above it would be 2-3 kn.


For smaller warheads as i recall but feel free to do some actual referencing in the next post by quoting from the previous. Your eventually going to get lucky and prove one of my statements to be incorrect and it may just as well be something as inconsequential as this. It would be great if you could correct me a few times as it might very well mean that you have learnt from those several dozens ( conservative estimate) where i have proven you to be misrepresenting the truth or simply lying.


Gotta laugh when you backtrack so blatantly and al in the same post.


I try not to laugh at people who have such a hard time getting to grips with the truth, crying seems more appropriate when considering the apparent lack of ability i have in regard to helping you, but sometimes your antics drives me to it Why you still believe this type of responses does much beside showing up your ignorance of the issues is quite beyond me.


Stellar



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
The_Investor, in one of your early posts you commented on the short range of SLBMs. You also said authorities were loathe to disclose the range of Trident.

Back in the eigthies I recall reading that Trident 1 series had a range of something like 8,500nm and the (then) planned Trident 2 series were to have a range of nearer 11,000nm. This was said in the context of an article about proposals to patrol Trident 2 subs under Antarctic ice shelves.

One thing would concern me about US reliance on SLBMs is the superiority of Russian hunter killer subs. I have never understood why USA does not deploy a handful of Ohio class subs into the Great lakes where they would be immune to Russian hunter killers and impossible to pinpoint ?

Of more relevance to the argument, how does this huge arsenal counter Al Qaeda with one or two nukes ?

And if the West is too scared to take out Iran's uranium centrifuges at Netanz, then what is the point of this "deterrent ?"





[edit on 29-4-2007 by sy.gunson]



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 06:57 AM
link   


it seems everyone who reads your posts disagrees with you

Certainly no one has read my posts, because if ANYONE did, he would know I have disproven you by providing dozens of links.



Yes you must study

The one who must study is you, not me.



And these few countries you mention equal the whole word ?

No. I said that the Russians control all of Europe except Britain. You said they control only post-Soviet European states. I have disproven you. Germany, France, Greece, Turkey, Austria, Italy and Finland aren’t post-Soviet states, though they are European states.



I believe everything I have written disproves you.

If you believe so, you are wrong. Sentences like ‘you are wrong’ and insults don’t disprove me.



I believe everyone agrees with me

If you believe so, you are wrong.Only 2 people agree with you. ATS is used by 10000 people.


you haven't dis proven a single thing I've said, all you do is repeat your same statements

I have disproven you. You, however, have been only repeating ‘you are wrong’ and insulting me so far.



Exams ? for kindergarten, since when?

I’m a university student.



when you start to make things up

news.bbc.co.uk...
europa.eu...
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.abovepolitics.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.cia.gov...

I’ve made this stuff up?

[edit on 2-5-2007 by INeedHelp]



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   
I may be wrong, though in the sake of curiosity I'd like to clarify something I believe is a bit muddled between the two parties here.

a. There is -absolutely no debate- on the importance of Russian energy-economy, and its co-dependency in the European market. It is proven. Fact. Staple.

b. -However-. The Russians cannot, by any-mean, expect to survive a full, or even partial withdrawel from Western Europe. If they did, it would mean economic, political, and potentially military disaster.

There can be arguments thrown eitherway to discuss how much of any impact either side would have -- Though the absolute truth is that they simply can't afford to. Energy is a two-way street. It makes Princes out of Paupers, and allows the modern-world to keep on ticking, though when either side doesn't keep up their end of the bargain, they both go to Hell.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join