Russian military speculated 2nd strongest in world

Originally posted by ben420

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
America thinks it's stronger than Russia? If so, why does it suck so badly when it comes to conflicts? How come Iraq still isn't really pacified? Wtf is happening in Afghanistan - neither the Yanks or the Ruskies could sort out a bunch of turban-wearing nomads, ffs.

I think pretty much all these "superpowers" have vastly overinflated opinions of themselves and their capabilities.

That said, Luxembourg for the win!

The only way to effectivly kill all the insurgency is to slaugter every civilian in Iraq because there is absolutely no way to identify an insurgent until he has already fired his RPG or Kalashnikov at you.

And obviously that first option is not a valid option.

Oh, and the Soviet Union at their peak lost in Afghanistan. Just thought I would point that out.

...I think I made it clear I was fully aware of that by saying "neither the Yanks nor the Ruskies" - "ruskies" being a quaint colloquialism for Russians.

And the Iraq/Afghan issue: well, no, not really. The first thing would be to not use shiite "cops" to keep the peace in a Sunni country, as I am aware. There is a youtube vid doing the rounds, regarding the thousands of Sunni men who have been killed (and strangely, enough, raped repeatedly) and their families threatened and killed etc.

This video goes on to detail how the Yank forces were just "right, hire anyone who turns up to keep order" not paying attention to the fact it was the original antagonists turning up to be the "good guys", post-war.

But the point is, the US military is straining as a bunch of tent-dwellers manage to get one over on them repeatedly.

These guerillas are still waging a war, and therefore still have the requirements any army has: it needs food, ammo and shelter. Manoeuverability is the watchword of the American army and yet these tribesmen are capable of disappearing into the landscape before they get their forces mobilised...how is this possible? Racing camels?

Originally posted by nunya13

So does that mean, solely by your logic, we should lock up every male because he could be a pedophile. We should kill anyone who has a gun, knife, hatchet, chainsaw, vehicle, rope because they could be a serial killer. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.

Dude, he was just pitching a theory. If you have an insurgency that's hiding in the population, the only way to make sure you got them all is to kill them all.

He knows this isn't the right course of action to take.

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
Manoeuverability is the watchword of the American army and yet these tribesmen are capable of disappearing into the landscape before they get their forces mobilised...how is this possible? Racing camels?

It's easy when you look like the civilian population, wear their clothing, speak their language. You pop a few rounds at the US troops, maybe fire an RPG, then disappear into the crowds.

Insurgents don't care if civilians are killed when they conduct their operations.

You guys have alot of points that are great.
That why they call this was America is in a Unwinable war because in order to acquire full order is to kill everything. Believe me if the insurgents had uniforms on they would be dead already.
Bush has us over their for no reason (their is no evidence linking 9/11 to Iraq/Afgan.) Really after 9/11 the american people wanted to kick someones ass for it then the Bush Admin just blamed it on the middle east.
Dont forget about Americas superior technology, Russia wouldnt even be able to engage our units we would have already destroyed them. The only thing they have our ground forces. I dont think that would work to bring the U.S. down since we are on the other side of the world

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
Manoeuverability is the watchword of the American army and yet these tribesmen are capable of disappearing into the landscape before they get their forces mobilised...how is this possible? Racing camels?

It's easy when you look like the civilian population, wear their clothing, speak their language. You pop a few rounds at the US troops, maybe fire an RPG, then disappear into the crowds.

Insurgents don't care if civilians are killed when they conduct their operations.

Well this is what we call terror today. But this way of fighting is the only way for 3erd nations to get kills or hurt us. We call them cowerds because they fight dirty. But if they had the same weapons as we do i think we would call this something els. And they wouldent need insurgents.

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
America thinks it's stronger than Russia? If so, why does it suck so badly when it comes to conflicts? How come Iraq still isn't really pacified? Wtf is happening in Afghanistan - neither the Yanks or the Ruskies could sort out a bunch of turban-wearing nomads, ffs.

I think pretty much all these "superpowers" have vastly overinflated opinions of themselves and their capabilities.

That said, Luxembourg for the win!

At some point during the Vietnam war, the American media found it had power to affect public opinion and then the politicians listen to what the people are saying, in theory. It doesn't matter that the news reporters or heads of news organizations have their own political agendas, just get the information out with the slant you want, and the people will follow.

The media, for better or worse, covers everything good and bad and really stresses the bad aspects of military actions. This has a profound effect on public perception of military actions within our free society.

The US military has won every battle fought in Vietnam and Iraq, it just has problems winning the "war" when politics gets involved.

2 separate issues on Afghanistan. The Soviets were stifled using poor tactics against guerrilla actions. Ultimately, they lost the war due to public pressure. The US and coalition forces have allowed the Taliban to regain some power because they are limited in actions from something as simple as crossing the border back into an ally's country but not being allowed to chase down and kill the enemy.

In a real war, where no one cared what happened to civilians, much like WW2; Both the USA and Russia would absolutely rule their respective battlefields. A conflict between the USA and Russia would have worldwide consequences as I believe every ally of either side would be attacked in some form with disastrous results.

And yes, poor Luxembourg would be a fond memory.

He said that killing all the civilians wasn't a valid option. Re-read what he said, you're accusing him of taking a horrible stance that he did not take.

"American intelligence believes Russia's military may have rebounded to become the second most powerful in the world"

Only because of there nukes.
Take away there nukes they are nothing.
If it wasn't for a common goal of getting rid of Hitler, the allies could have easily smashed Russia.
Russia is a formidable adversary solely due to them being able to adapt and develop there own technology at the same rate and on a similar par as the allies.
And thats based on advice from a Russian friend of mine by the way.........

LMFAO another 'terrorism WMD terror attacks fear weapons of mass destruction freedom liberties war terrorism terrorist AL-CIAda terrorism secure our borders' news piece eh.

Well so what if they are #2... someone has to be...

Who needs an Army? With enough money and intelligence you can put any country in its knees.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Twist there is an element of fearmongering but the problem is that whilst America has had its attention held elsewhere the Russian economy and military have been growing at a greater rate than in the US.

Lets put it into perspective. Russia's total GDP equals 2.5% of the worlds GDP, while Americas GDP equals 27.5% of the worlds GDP. Again, third world nations often have higher growth rates contrast to developed ones. Russia largely is a third world nation (Especially if you compare to the United States). Had it not been for abundant natural resources, Russia would be far poorer than it currently is.

Militarily, the Russians have not been "growing faster" than the United states. For better perspective, that same United States spends $70.3 billion dollars on military R&D projects alone, per year, where as the entire Russian military budget is roughly $70 billion.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by West Coast]

reply to post by jerico65


ahh...gotcha. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Guess I didn't read it right. I definitely just shot off on that one. Didn't fully read it. I'm actually kind of embarrassed right now

My very sincere apologies, man! Forgiven?

[edit on 23-8-2008 by nunya13]

Since when did they lose that position? i cant think of any other countries that could take on the might of russia, USA is the only one that could....maybe china if it didnt come down to nukes...anyway 25 years time in the future...

1.China
2.USA
3.Russia

Second and third place is debatable....but China IS going to become the next superpower,no doubts about that...

There one child per family before extra taxes will cripple them in the next generation, the high population is what is powering there economy at the moment. As the next generation of Chinese will be smaller a disease could easily kill alot of them. So its not all in there favour.

As to Russia being the second strongest military has anyone ever thought of Europe? Great Britain, France and Germany all have strong militaries, air forces and navies with Britain and France having 2nd and 3rd strongest Navies respectively. Great Britain, France and Germany are quite patriotic countries add to the this the fact that they create some of the best miitary hardware and weapons its a pretty considerable fighting force.

Originally posted by BBTBE
There one child per family before extra taxes will cripple them in the next generation, the high population is what is powering there economy at the moment. As the next generation of Chinese will be smaller a disease could easily kill alot of them. So its not all in there favour.

As to Russia being the second strongest military has anyone ever thought of Europe? Great Britain, France and Germany all have strong militaries, air forces and navies with Britain and France having 2nd and 3rd strongest Navies respectively. Great Britain, France and Germany are quite patriotic countries add to the this the fact that they create some of the best miitary hardware and weapons its a pretty considerable fighting force.

Yes europe is growing larger, population of 490 million just now...but still....we are not really on par with russia yet i think...depends how many other countries join in the next couple of decades.Also what role europe should play in the world...i dont think we are going to create a huge military and throw money at it like America,we will probably keep a sane sized military for defensive purposes...and focus more money on things other than the military...or atleast i hope...anyway going off topic.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by Lethil]

Define 'second strongest'. Is it in capability wise? Or men wise? I.e. 1 million men strong? Take a look at wikipedia.

en.wikipedia.org...

Wouldn't surprise me if those numbers were off & Russia was second... but obviously... size does not equal capability... or else North Korea would obliterate half of Asia.

reply to post by C.C.Benjamin


Ehrm.

Iraq / Afghanistan were massive military successes. (If you want to call it that). Second, unconventional warfare tells us nothing about a force. Chechnya & Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The relative ability to suppress gorillas is only as effective as the ability of the invading force to commit genocide.

reply to post by Nikolas

Winning a war is NOT about killing as many civilians as possible.

&, if it goes as far to involve smallpox, then there's something called Mutually Assured Destruction...

When both sides have been reduced to dust, I don't see how you can say they won.

[edit on 23/8/2008 by C0bzz]

You know what.. I think this picture sums up what i am thinking at the moment about the Russian military.





BTW.. I just don't see a country that only has 1 ageing Aircraft carrier as all that strong. Yea i know.. Thats just the navy.. But mehh

[edit on 23-8-2008 by wolfmanjack]

reply to post by wolfmanjack


the russians have never used carriers for force projectiion - the naval doctrin is to use the surface force to support the submarine force.

If the US wasn't such sissies with rules of engagement im sure they'd slaughter the enemy, but because media backs just about ever war and conflict, they want to make sure to minimize civilian casualties, thus making the wars harder to fight, they really can't bring in the big weapons to level those cities...

But russia on the other hand seems to just fire random shots into the town and citys with a who gives a $$$$ attitude, thats the way to get things done unfortunatly...

the tanks the rode into georgia with were so horribly designed, that they are completely vulnerable to land mines, which is why you see soldiers riding on top of them.

putin wants to restore the ussr, the glory days when the world feared russia, instead of pitying them as has been the case since the end of the cold war

this is dangerous, they are sword rattling, and they invite confrontation.

look for poland to be attacked next, specifically, the missile shield construction.

how will nato respond?

any guess?