What to make of this ? Is it muscle flexing?

Russia is bringing out all kinds of heavy duty weaponry lately.

en.rian.ru...

Yeah, it's them flexing their muscle. I likened them to a kid with a new toy in another thread but it didn't seem to go down too well.

They don't have the means to sustain a war for any period of time, so they develop all this funky new gear as a deterrent. Probably because they know nuclear weapons aren't good enough, seeing as they would never use them.

I really wonder what Russia has given to Iran for self defense?

Yeah, it's them flexing their muscle. I likened them to a kid with a new toy in another thread but it didn't seem to go down too well.

I take it by saying “it didn’t seem to go down too well” you meant me referring you to the CIA fact book information?

They don't have the means to sustain a war for any period of time, so they develop all this funky new gear as a deterrent. Probably because they know nuclear weapons aren't good enough, seeing as they would never use them.

Since it looks like you still didn’t have a chance to browse through it, here’s a link;

www.cia.gov...

When up to speed, please care to explain what you base you statements on. Since we are on the forum where members “Deny Ignorance”, it’ll be nice to see some facts backing up such statements.

Kind of like this;

I really wonder what Russia has given to Iran for self defense?

Here it is;

•

Russia-Iran Arms Trade
Prepared by: Lionel Beehner
• November 1, 2006

•

What kinds of arms does Russia sell to Iran?
Since 1992, Russia has sold Iran hundreds of major weapons systems, including twenty T-72 tanks, ninety-four air-to-air missiles, and a handful of combat aircraft like the MiG-29. Late last year, Russia agreed to sell Iran a $700 million surface-to-air missile defense system (SA-15 Gauntlet) along with thirty TOR M-1 air-defense missile systems, ostensibly to defend its soon-to-be-complete, Russian-built nuclear reactor at Bushehr. Moscow also plans to upgrade Tehran’s Su-24, MiG-29 aircraft, and T-72 battle tanks. Iran has shown interest in S-300 anti-aircraft missiles from Russia and Belarus, which can intercept enemy aircraft ninety to 180 miles away. Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s Military and Security Studies Program, says Iran is building up its naval presence. In April 2006, the Iranians claimed to have tested a high-speed torpedo—similar to the Russian-made VA-111 Shkval—capable of destroying large warships or submarines. Iran already fields China’s Silkworm anti-shipping missile and an array of mine technologies.

Full article here - www.cfr.org...

Yeah it's muscle flexing. Looks like the US has it's eyes on one of the Russian Bear's honey pots (Iran), bad news all round if they try to stick their fingers in.

Very bad news.

It amazes me the amount of idiots who underestimate Russia. Well, those who disregard the lessons of history do so at their own peril.

It amazes me the amount of idiots who underestimate Russia. Well, those who disregard the lessons of history do so at their own peril.

Damn right! I’ve been saying it on this forum since day one only to be called all kinds of stereotypical rubbish.

It went as far as people not believing that I’m an American just because I disagreed with the kind of ramped stupidity we have running amuck here.

The biggest weakness is the blind belief in invincibility, and that’s exactly how a big bully feels right up until he gets decked in the teeth so hard that it wipes that stupid self righteous grin clean off.

Thanks for the article iskander.

My pleasure deadjed, it’s what we do.

This isnt muscle flexing its Russias way of restoring the status quo.

For the past 55 to 60 years there has been this little strategy called nuclear deterrance, put simply it means any country wishing to launch a first strike with nuclear weapons was going to get wiped out themselves in retaliation. This is the strategic theory behind the worlds SSBN fleet, they are tacitly immune from attack, when there country is attacked they cop a signal and let the birds fly back. And yes before some smart a@# says it, yes they can be found I know but the risk of not being able to guarantee getting all of them is the deterrence. This is pretty much what stopped the cold war ever going hot, the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Now America is pushing full steam ahead with "Star Wars" which as everyone knows is an anti-ballistic missile system. This theoretically gives America or anyone else with the technology the ability to consider a first strike option without fear of retaliation. Just to add insult to injury America wishes to deploy part of this system in Europe, Russias backyard. This upsets the balance of strategic deterrance.

So Russias first step to countering this technology is a simple one, build as many ballistic missile systems as possible (land and sea) and saturate the target with so many missiles that "Star Wars" cant get them all. This restores the balance of strategic deterrance and negates Americas new found first strike option.

Whether "Star Wars" is a valid threat to Russia or not is irrelevant, you can guarantee if the shoe was on the other foot the Yanks would be doin the same.

Look through the propoganda Russias just tryin to protect its turf, the same as America. The only people to blame for this are American politicians for letting this system be developed, it upsets the balance.

Please don't bring out the 'Deny Ignorance' thing out on me.

So, maybe I was wrong? It doesn't mean I was ignorant, I was wrong. I personally don't think that Russia could finance a war that had to last for a long period of time.

I don't have any facts, just that Russia still has to provide for it's citizens, transport and all the other stuff if it went to war. Seeing that it would probably be against America, the US would invade and Russia would have to spend all it's time, effort and money kicking them out. No number of 'facts' can make that not true.

Again, no facts, just what I think might happen.

Originally posted by Zanzibar
Please don't bring out the 'Deny Ignorance' thing out on me.

So, maybe I was wrong? It doesn't mean I was ignorant, I was wrong. I personally don't think that Russia could finance a war that had to last for a long period of time.

I don't have any facts, just that Russia still has to provide for it's citizens, transport and all the other stuff if it went to war. Seeing that it would probably be against America, the US would invade and Russia would have to spend all it's time, effort and money kicking them out. No number of 'facts' can make that not true.

Again, no facts, just what I think might happen.

You need to think this through carefully, money very quickly ceases to be an issue when a country is fighting for its very survival. Read up on 20th century history and you will understand this.

Originally posted by Tonka
You need to think this through carefully, money very quickly ceases to be an issue when a country is fighting for its very survival. Read up on 20th century history and you will understand this.

Good point, didn't think of that, thanks!

I tend to think abit too literally some times, guess it's like in Iraq, people fighting for their very survival.

Id like to point out the turkish war for independance as a good example of well equipped armies losing due to 1 determined but poorly equipped army.

All of Russias posturing is not only, but primarily geared at the own population. Russia will have elections next spring. Putin has had his two terms, he has to free his seat for at least one term until he could get re-elected.

So what he does is both instill fear of outward enemies into the population, an oh-so-american technique, and presents himself as the strong man at the helm of Russia at the same time. Meanwhile, he has designated one of his ministers, a competent but unimaginary and noncharismatic person, as his successor. He is expected to win by a small margin, and carry throughan uneventful presidential term. Then, in a few years, Putin can step in again as the saving grace for Russias hurt pride and have his go as President again.

Originally posted by Tonka
This isnt muscle flexing its Russias way of restoring the status quo.



Now America is pushing full steam ahead with "Star Wars" which as everyone knows is an anti-ballistic missile system. This theoretically gives America or anyone else with the technology the ability to consider a first strike option without fear of retaliation. Just to add insult to injury America wishes to deploy part of this system in Europe, Russias backyard. This upsets the balance of strategic deterrance.

What drugs are you on?, Russia is 40 years ahead of U.S. in "Star Wars Tech!!
1. www.fas.org...
2. www.astronautix.com...
3. www.dia.mil...
4. www.fas.org...
5. www.jamesoberg.com...
6. www.uscc.gov...
7. www.flug-revue.rotor.com...
8. catless.ncl.ac.uk...
9. www.oism.org...

reply to post by Zanzibar

So, maybe I was wrong? It doesn't mean I was ignorant, I was wrong. I personally don't think that Russia could finance a war that had to last for a long period of time.

Neither did Hitler, Napoleon, Teutonic Knights, Ottomans, Genghis Chan, etc….

I don't have any facts, just that Russia still has to provide for it's citizens, transport and all the other stuff if it went to war. Seeing that it would probably be against America, the US would invade and Russia would have to spend all it's time, effort and money kicking them out.

See above, as an example of the same mistake all kinds of folks made by invading Russia.

No number of 'facts' can make that not true.

The facts are that ever since Russia united to fight the Mongols, every attempt to invade it ended up in total defeat to the invaders, and no amount of denial will make that not true.

Again, no facts, just what I think might happen.

As I always say, everybody is entitled to their opinion, but I prefer facts and HISTORICAL evidence.

What drugs are you on?, Russia is 40 years ahead of U.S. in "Star Wars Tech!!

Theoretically it’s possible. Look into ion thrusters and “Project Woodpecker” back from the 60s. HAARP really took of in late 90s.

To this day Russians hold the payload records in both aviation and orbital delivery. US actually contracts Russian heavy lifters to move the big stuff and to bring heavy satellites into orbit.

As far as making things go fast, to this day Russians hold the lead in development of hypersonic craft.

They had them since the 80s while ours was simply purchased from them in the 90s, yet it’s still in experimental stage.

Who knows what they got going now.

Originally posted by JimmyBlonde
Yeah it's muscle flexing. Looks like the US has it's eyes on one of the Russian Bear's honey pots (Iran), bad news all round if they try to stick their fingers in.

Very bad news.

It amazes me the amount of idiots who underestimate Russia. Well, those who disregard the lessons of history do so at their own peril.

I'm sorry but who exactly is disregarding history?

USA VS RUSSIA Cold War USA WINS
USA VS RUSSIA CUBAN Missile Crisis USA WINS
USA VS RUSSIA ECONOMICALLY USA WINS
USA VS RUSSIA POLITICALLY USA WINS

So who exactly is ignoring history

WW2 without the USA Germany wins. Russia was only good for cannon fodder if the USA does not finance and supply russia they are toast next spring.

Originally posted by Tonka

You need to think this through carefully, money very quickly ceases to be an issue when a country is fighting for its very survival. Read up on 20th century history and you will understand this.

This is true. You know what else is true. In the situation you describe America's kid gloves come off and real war is waged not a war where we see the enemy but don't fire cause he is using human shields.

Our already overwhelming firepower becomes that much more effective. Without nukes we can wipe out almost any nations infrastructure within 48 hours.

Originally posted by YASKY

Originally posted by Tonka
This isnt muscle flexing its Russias way of restoring the status quo.



Now America is pushing full steam ahead with "Star Wars" which as everyone knows is an anti-ballistic missile system. This theoretically gives America or anyone else with the technology the ability to consider a first strike option without fear of retaliation. Just to add insult to injury America wishes to deploy part of this system in Europe, Russias backyard. This upsets the balance of strategic deterrance.

What drugs are you on?, Russia is 40 years ahead of U.S. in "Star Wars Tech!!
1. www.fas.org...
2. www.astronautix.com...
3. www.dia.mil...
4. www.fas.org...
5. www.jamesoberg.com...
6. www.uscc.gov...
7. www.flug-revue.rotor.com...
8. catless.ncl.ac.uk...
9. www.oism.org...

Yeah sure. Of course they are maybe on paper.. LMAO I always love to hear about russian super weapons which exist only on paper, and even then with a thousand flaws. If russian weapons are so good how come the USA has such an easy time destroying them. BTW where does the money for all this research and testing come from? Considering that russia barely has a pot to piss in.

I guess their star wars are as effective as their super subs which keep sinking in peacetime due to design flaws and shoddy maintenance.