It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What to make of this ? Is it muscle flexing?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
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.


Historical evidence shows russia getting its butt handed to them in a sling before the winter came around. Its also shows the USA financing and supplying russia in their time of need.




posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   
dmxny, the tragedy is that these days one can gudge the age of another simply by the “type” of education one received in high school.


I'm sorry but who exactly is disregarding history?


Were you around for the 80s? I doubt it, but if you were, war you countions?

Anyway, I’ll just have to do what our school teachers are not doing.


USA VS RUSSIA Cold War USA WINS


How exactly USA won the Cold War?

I seem to remember people on the streets of Moscow demanding the resignation of the government.



USA VS RUSSIA CUBAN Missile Crisis USA WINS


Why was JFK shot, and what do you consider a victory in Cuba? Castro is still in charge the last time I checked. Here’s a hint – Bay of Pigs, look that one up.

If reading is not your forte, rent a movie called “13 Days”.


USA VS RUSSIA ECONOMICALLY USA WINS


USA wining economically? Winning what?

Have you looked at what’s happening now? Here’s a hint, the highest level of foreclosures on record, highest dept, lowest exchange rate to Euro yet, and as openly stated by Central Bank, and our economy is in exactly the same state as it was in 1929?

Are you aware of what happened in 1929?


Russia is outpacing the US, UK and Germany in securing its population’s long-term economic and environmental future, according to a new study.

Economists at Germany’s Allianz Insurance and Dresdner Bank have ranked Russia sixth in an 18-country index of “sustainability of fiscal and ecological development”, ahead of the UK (placed seventh), Germany (ninth), and the US (17th).

The result – described as “unexpected” by the report’s authors on Wednesday – came about because of Russia’s huge oil and gas reserves and the sharp rise in energy prices in recent years, which have boosted significantly the country’s finances.


Financial Times Magazine - www.ft.com...



USA VS RUSSIA POLITICALLY USA WINS


Wins what? In the actual WORLD (the big round one with many countries inn it), Russia enjoys a much better national image, public opinion ratings, international approval ratings, and well as policy approval.


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.


Read up on Ural mountains to find out what was moved beyond them, and why to this day such a feat is considered as one the great human efforts.

Look into some factual data on the extent of the land leased program, and then compare it to the output of Soviet industry at the time.

If by that time you still have some attention span left, look in into actual statistics of the war.

Which nation dropped twice the tonnage of ordinance on military German targets then all of the Western allies combined? What was the tonnage?

Which forces broke the back of German armored forces? How about Luftwaffe?

Who took Berlin and found Hitler’s remain?

Remember that footage of swastika being blown up on the Reichstag? Ever wondered who actually blew it up, and who filmed it? Look it up, you’ll be surprised.

Moving on.


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


No kidding, you mean like Viet Nam? Linebacker 1 and 2?

Tell that to the Serbs, the guys that managed to shot down two F-117s, and decoy so effectively that US bombing ended up blowing up a whole lot of plywood while letting Serbs to hide over 70% of their armor.


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.


How about Russian hypersonic programs? NASA had to BUY test data from the Russian Holod project, and still can barely make it work.

Look right here;

www.abovetopsecret.com...


If russian weapons are so good how come the USA has such an easy time destroying them.


Because those weapons were not Russian, they were SOVIET, dating back to the 60s!


BTW where does the money for all this research and testing come from? Considering that russia barely has a pot to piss in.


From YOU every time you put GASOLINE in YOUR car!

I’ve actually WORKED in Russia, and I’ve personally seen how much wealth there actually is. Let me put it this way, both Bentley and Rolls Royce redesigned their cars to meet Russian specs, and most of their production is bought up by Russians years in advance.

Ever seen movies from the 80s with stereotypically rich Arab guys? Well, those guys are now Russian.

Get into the 21st century already, and pull our head out of typical, half-baked propaganda.


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


I take a leap here, but I’ll take a guess here. You have no idea why Star Wars came about in the first place, do you?

Look into Soviet orbital bombardment satellites from the 79s, find out why we could hang in there with them (hint: lift capacity), and why we actually singed al kinds of treaties against arms race in space. (which by the way Bush also through out the window.)


Historical evidence shows russia getting its butt handed to them in a sling before the winter came around.


History shows that if the buck did not always stopped with Russia, the world would not exist today as we know it today.

The Western world would not exist as we know it if the Mongol Empire and the Golden Horde didn’t have to commit so many forces to keep fighting the Russians.

Here, feel free to start here - www.uwgb.edu...


Its also shows the USA financing and supplying russia in their time of need.


You think that “help” was free? Do you READ or just repeat PROPOGANDA you see on TV?

That “help” was PAID for in GOLD, just as Britain paid in gold for American “support”.

Such business arrangement was so profitable, that it literally paid for the typical American suburban dream life.

Do you even know what a war bond was and why people bought it?

Good God, this is what happens when we stop paying a decent pay to our teachers.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Some great discussion going on here . I've learned alot of new things in this thread for sure.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

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.


Read up on Ural mountains to find out what was moved beyond them, and why to this day such a feat is considered as one the great human efforts.

Look into some factual data on the extent of the land leased program, and then compare it to the output of Soviet industry at the time.

If by that time you still have some attention span left, look in into actual statistics of the war. [...]


Just to expand on that, here´s an interesting article on the relative roles of the Soviets and the Anglo-American side of that war, and also how the "glory of victory" has been systematically shifted westwards after the war:


...After talking at Cambridge recently about the preponderance of the eastern front and the scale of the Red Army’s triumph, I was accosted by an angry young British historian. “Don’t you realise that we were pinning down 56 German divisions in France alone,” he said. “Without that the Red Army would have been heavily defeated.” What is less acknowledged is that without the Red Army pulverising 150 divisions, the allies would never have landed. ...


The USA certainly won the lion´s share of the campaign against Japan. But in Europe, the USA acted more as subcontractors that only managed to shorten a war that was already decided by the time the intervened directly - similar to WW1 by the way. Ultimately, the Germans lost the war by themselves because their war machinery was unsustainable for a lack of resources.

[edit on 17/9/2007 by Lonestar24]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   

The USA certainly won the lion´s share of the campaign against Japan. But in Europe, the USA acted more as subcontractors that only managed to shorten a war that was already decided by the time the intervened directly - similar to WW1 by the way. Ultimately, the Germans lost the war by themselves because their war machinery was unsustainable for a lack of resources.


Oh come on StellarX, don’t you watch TV? Discovery Channel, History Channel, Military Channel? Ever since 2001, they all repeatedly run “documentaries” which clearly show only Anglo-American forces doing all the fighting, and they show it perfectly clear that if was in fact US military force that tipped the balance of war!

Sorry for the sarcasm.

I ran those number a long time ago, and found that on the Western front, Allies often did not push forward when they could, and just waited for the Germans to pull more forces out to the Eastern front, while officially calling it supply line reinforcement.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
By the way, I liked the article;

www.timesonline.co.uk...

but, I’m very critical of the timesOnline.uk for it’s massive propaganda campaign.


It’s not surprising that the article is based on the following;

[ez]Europe at War 1939-1945: No Simple Victory by Norman Davies is published by Macmillan, £25

Just keep an eye out for timesonlike.uk



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Hey Iksander, thanks for the awesome posts
very informative. I know quite a bit about history myself and as far as I can tell everything you mentioned rings true to me. I have also always been skeptical at the portrayal of Russia as being weak even now, and I think that notion is waaay outdated. The notion that the US is hugely powerful is also overblown.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Unplugged]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   
I think Russia will be using cruise missiles with nuclear warheads in order to avoid the radars used by missile defense systems. Low terrain following radar equipped cruise missiles with avoidance systems. They may be showing those big multiple war head ICBM's but in reality they will be thinking about the weakness of missile defense systems.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by cloakndagger
I think Russia will be using cruise missiles with nuclear warheads in order to avoid the radars used by missile defense systems. Low terrain following radar equipped cruise missiles with avoidance systems. They may be showing those big multiple war head ICBM's but in reality they will be thinking about the weakness of missile defense systems.

Though, they don't have to worry about that quite yet. America still hasn't implemented laser systems everywhere, and Topol-M's supposedly wouldn't have much of a problem getting past the aging patriot missiles.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Another Mighty Russia post? A few thoughts:

1. Better loved than the U.S? Except in Eastern Europe, Ukraine, Georgia, Baltic states, in other words, by anyone that has initmate knowledge of them.

2. Technically superior? Well they certainly build a better Kerosine / O2 rocket engine than the west, and have been flying Soyuz since the 70's, but what other space accomplishments have they achieved other than stunts? Where's thier space telescope and planetary probe program? Where's thier hypergolic upper stage?

Speaking of stunts, how much type has been used on this board to laud the absolutely worthless airshow "Cobra" trick the Su's and Migs use to strike fear into the hearts of gullible western observers? This was explained here as something supposed to render them invulnerable in air combat.

The excuse commonly offered on this board regarding the failure of thier military equipment in real-world situations is that Russians are not operating it or that these countries are not buying the same grade as the Russians use themselves. This strikes me as both racist and irrational.

Why would these countries buy this equipment at all if they know it will fail? Why not follow the example of the Serbs and cleverly conceal and mislead instead of even bothering to fight back? That ONE F-117 shoot-down sure won the war for them, didn't it?

A couple weeks ago the Israelis shut down the supposed advanced Russian Air Defense system in place in Syria without even physically attacking it during an air strike on supposed Nork nuke facility. When can we expect the Syrian to return the favor with thier superior Russian technologial help?



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaaaa
Another Mighty Russia post? A few thoughts:

Speaking of stunts, how much type has been used on this board to laud the absolutely worthless airshow "Cobra" trick the Su's and Migs use to strike fear into the hearts of gullible western observers? This was explained here as something supposed to render them invulnerable in air combat.









. Technically superior? Well they certainly build a better Kerosine / O2 rocket engine than the west, and have been flying Soyuz since the 70's, but what other space accomplishments have they achieved other than stunts? Where's thier space telescope and planetary probe program? Where's thier hypergolic upper stage?






pulsed plasma thrusters , ion thrusters,thermophoton drive(photon thrusters),Topaz space station nuclear reactor , first nation to reach moon,venus and mars , there satellites in 80's were first to unravel the microwave background , later confirmed in western press and also space stations , first space station was Salyut and largest and most advanced in the end of 20th century was Mir that operated 15 years



Why would these countries buy this equipment at all if they know it will fail? Why not follow the example of the Serbs and cleverly conceal and mislead instead of even bothering to fight back? That ONE F-117 shoot-down sure won the war for them, didn't it?


1 downed , 1 written off , and according to serbian reports 3 f-117 and 1 b-2 was downed




A couple weeks ago the Israelis shut down the supposed advanced Russian Air Defense system in place in Syria without even physically attacking it during an air strike on supposed Nork nuke facility.



superior help?????? well , the best superior russikie SAM tech they have is the strela short range missile and russia did not certainly give
s-300V giant/gladiators or s-300pmu longe SAM

as for attack by israel , its claims



When can we expect the Syrian to return the favor with thier superior Russian technologial help?


LOL , forgot how russian kornet missiles sold to hezobollah by syria turned 50 merkavas into scrap metal in one week and IDF was crying like sissy girls and whining about profileration of russian tech





The excuse commonly offered on this board regarding the failure of thier military equipment in real-world situations is.


lol, forgot kornet missile vs merkava in lebonan and yes russian fighters like su-27 that do cobra manuver have not been used in battle,




that Russians are not operating it or that these countries are not buying the same grade as the Russians use themselves. This strikes me as both racist and irrational


nothing is irrational ,fact is that they were monkey models not standard soviet models

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 22-9-2007 by manson_322]

[edit on 22-9-2007 by manson_322]



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 06:17 AM
link   
ok to the guy that asked said "why where soviet tanks so easily taken out in Iraq"

T-72's vs Arbrams is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Someone said they are restablishing deterance, right on I agree with this, I wanted to add this whole thing started getting ugly when we were negotiating setting up our best new line of missile interceptors on their border in Czec.

Public consumption, I think it goes deeper then this, Putnin kicked out 2 Rothschilds and imprisoned another, I think this is pushing back against western Elites. I have heard some spin that he is re-establishing a less democratic system, this is a very common result of pushing back against money and economic infiltration.

Arming Iran, I just loved that hand in the honey jar remark.

On attacking Russia, I can't even imagine a land battle, we will fight them with economics and top level infiltration with World Goverment.

I enjoyed the thread thanks everyone for your posts.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Redge777
ok to the guy that asked said "why where soviet tanks so easily taken out in Iraq"

T-72's vs Arbrams is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.


to be precise
the difference t-72BM(developed in 1987) and t-72 m "urals"(developed in 1971) is significiants , the iraqi t-72 was downgraded monkey model of t-72m , which USSR stopped manufacturing in 1979.....

t-72m had armor of 280mm RHA , while t-72 BM has armor of was 520mm RHA , compare that m1a1 in 1991 whose armor was 470 mm RHA

also the iraqi shells were poor quality steel rounds with a penetration of 270 mm RHA at 1 km, which soviet forces stopped using in 1981



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[edit on 22-9-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[edit on 22-9-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by dmxny

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.
Stop listening to DMX he's destroying your mind, Your post shows that you don't know about military inventions those links I posted were U.S. sources "ADMITTING" Russia has these weapons, so your argument is DEBUNKED TOTTALY my goodness are you for real man, did you actually read what you wrote!!!!



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
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.


Say this all you want lol. "Russia can't sustain itself in a long war blah blah blah". Ok,
, whatever man. Ain't this the same thing the Germans thought when they hit the USSR in world war two. Open up a history book and take a look at the state Russia continued to fight in the wars it has in the past, and just how far a Russian soldier can be pushed (or the people in general). If you think shortage of resources is a problem for this country, lol, aight. Tsarism, USSR, and the collapse of the USSR 90s (and somewhat now). That spells a bit over a century of shortage doesn't it? Russians are adapted to shortage more then you possibly know
.

Regards,
Maestro



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by aaaaa
Another Mighty Russia post? A few thoughts:

1. Better loved than the U.S? Except in Eastern Europe, Ukraine, Georgia, Baltic states, in other words, by anyone that has initmate knowledge of them.


Anyone else that has intimate knowledge of them? Ok that's a big claim there. Now tell me this why Abkhazia want to be seperate from Georgia and with Russia if Georgia all of georgia hates Russia? You probably don't even know where Abkhazia is. Oh and try to tell me Ukraine hates Russia. I live in Kiev atm, and have been befor the orange revolution. Try telling me this country hates Russia. The current president does, yes, and about 30% of the population support him (western Ukraine). Crimea considers itself Russia, 80+% people speak Russian here, and so many people have family here and in Russia (mixed).


Originally posted by aaaaa
2. Technically superior? Well they certainly build a better Kerosine / O2 rocket engine than the west, and have been flying Soyuz since the 70's, but what other space accomplishments have they achieved other than stunts? Where's thier space telescope and planetary probe program? Where's thier hypergolic upper stage?


US spends millions on a pen that writes upside down so they can write in space - Russians use pencils. Who's launching the US into space now? Oh and idn't they find out in this joint space project they are in that the Russian space suits are far better then that of the US?


Originally posted by aaaaa
Speaking of stunts, how much type has been used on this board to laud the absolutely worthless airshow "Cobra" trick the Su's and Migs use to strike fear into the hearts of gullible western observers? This was explained here as something supposed to render them invulnerable in air combat.


Worthless air trick.....what and how much of it have you been smoking?


Originally posted by aaaaa
The excuse commonly offered on this board regarding the failure of thier military equipment in real-world situations is that Russians are not operating it or that these countries are not buying the same grade as the Russians use themselves. This strikes me as both racist and irrational.


How the heck is this racist?? Read a book on capitalism or something. And it's not an excuse it's a fact - all the tech Russia sells is not of the same class as they're using. Plus they know that they're buying lower grade stuff.


Originally posted by aaaaa
Why would these countries buy this equipment at all if they know it will fail? Why not follow the example of the Serbs and cleverly conceal and mislead instead of even bothering to fight back? That ONE F-117 shoot-down sure won the war for them, didn't it?


First of all this equipment does not fail. Try not to forget that this equipment does not operate itself. Any country can buy Russian tech all they won't it won't do them a lest bit of good if they don't apply it properly, or aren't skilled with it. As for the F-117 shot down, funny you should blow it off like no big deal - this happened right after the USAF declared this plane impossible to shoot down
Serbs were smart lol.


Oh and the post above with the example of Hezbollah using the Kornets - perfect example.

regards,
Maestro



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Funny stuff, Maestro, good luck with that re-unification thing.
You may want to check out Snopes for that space pen story; Fisher pens came up with it on it's own, NASA did not. Your prize story is Bullsh*t.
Seriously, if "The Cobra" was so deadly, where is the client state shoot-down to point to?
Yeah, I could shoot down a F-117 too if the flight plan was identical every flight.
Racism is something the Russians excel at; so is screwing thier customers, who would not be buying thier neanderthal equipment (AK's excepted) and 1990's electronic warfare if western states didn't already have embargoes on such states for the abysmal treatment of thier own citizens.
I can locate Georgia on the map, as well, although it's an old atlas and shows that it USED TO BE pat of the Soviet Union.
Keep up the spying; that, the price of oil, and scared psuedo-marxists in China the only reason Mother Russia is still remotely in the game.
As always, a pleasure to be communicating with you on the American invented internet!



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Racism is something the Russians excel at; so is screwing thier customers, who would not be buying thier neanderthal equipment (AK's excepted) and 1990's electronic warfare if western states didn't already have embargoes on such states for the abysmal treatment of thier own citizens.
I can locate Georgia on the map, as well, although it's an old atlas and shows that it USED TO BE pat of the Soviet Union.


Wow, could that be considered as hate speech? Because I sure didn’t find anything informative in that post…

Or is it just a typical tail gate confederate flag waving Bud guzzling ignorance? 

I guess I shouldn’t ask aaaaa how he feels about abolition of slavery and the jena 6 then…


Keep up the spying; that, the price of oil, and scared psuedo-marxists in China the only reason Mother Russia is still remotely in the game.
As always, a pleasure to be communicating with you on the American invented internet!


It’s true what the say, society is either a product of hard working people, or people are the product of failing society.


Keep up the spying; that, the price of oil, and scared psuedo-marxists in China the only reason Mother Russia is still remotely in the game.
As always, a pleasure to be communicating with you on the American invented internet!


While putting obvious paranoia aside, three is something constructive which can be said here.


In Beijing there is a Mao “themed” restaurant, where young, pretty girls with playful pigtails wear skimpy uniform green shorts, and serve Chinese businessmen delicacies of all sorts.

Chinese haven’t been Marxist since the 60s, not to mention that they actually attempted to INVAIDE USSR only to face COMPLETE extermination of their troops by Soviet forces. When Chinese requested transfer of their wounded, Russians truthfully replied that they were no wounded, only the dead.

World Market Economy, all it is.

As to the Internet, it’s a ever evolving CONCEPT, not an invention. Who invented Internet?


"We are almost always told that the Internet began solely in America. This is not really true. The earliest pioneers included a Frenchman, Louis Pouzin, who introduced the idea of data grams and an Englishman, Donald W. Davies, who was one of the inventors of packet-switching. Another of the great pioneers in Britain was Peter T. Kirstein, who went to America at the beginning of the Arpanet in 1969 when it was decided that Davies could not go for reasons of national security. "


www.nethistory.info...

So how about them “Freedom Fries” then? Or maybe a SPOT of tea with your crumpet?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join