Originally posted by semperfoo
Wow.. HAHA This thread is laughable.. Russia controls the world?
HAHA good one. Just because terrorist along with other third world organizations have access to Kalashnikov's doesnt count as world domination...
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 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,
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...
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..
Hey pal.. Europe does not equal the entire world. Remember that next time. That is all.
Originally posted by StellarX
No one controls the world but some certainly have great powers over their fellows.
No one suggested it did.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by bodrul
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by semperfoo
Which country are you referring to here?
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.
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.
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?..
Originally posted by rogue1
Well teh SS-N-8 wth a 2km CEP would havbugger all effect as well.
According to who ? America has always had a technological edge over the SOviets.
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.
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
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.”
“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."
But you said more accurate, more bluster from you I guess. All websited quote more accuracy from GPS than GLONASS.
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.
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
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.
But you really hvae no odea, just your typical supposition.
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.
No you weren't at all, you were tlaking about ICBM blast damage which you were completely wrong.
Gee how surprising repeating exactly what I said. Thnaks for the backup but not needed, I know my stuff.
Of course you have much more reliable secret inforamtion ....LOL.
Actiually it would cover the northern hemisphere within a day or 2.
LOl it doesn't. It explodes in the and not when it hits the ground, hence air-burst, you can understand English ?
LOL once again you critisize your own posts.
You just stated above it would be 2-3 kn.
Gotta laugh when you backtrack so blatantly and al in the same post.
it seems everyone who reads your posts disagrees with you
Yes you must study
And these few countries you mention equal the whole word ?
I believe everything I have written disproves you.
I believe everyone agrees with me
you haven't dis proven a single thing I've said, all you do is repeat your same statements
Exams ? for kindergarten, since when?
when you start to make things up