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.

 

Russia could destroy NATO ships in 20 mins: Admiral

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


you're right. i didn't mean to present it as fact, but the evidence is quite compelling if you do the research. we may not have exactly what is describe din that wiki article. but you bet your ass we have something like it, or better than it.

but IMO when talking about war you have to factor in everything each side has. not just the stuff sitting right in front of you.

Sun Tzu put it perfectly IMO.

"when strong, appear to be weak
when weak, appear to be strong"

for now it's sabre rattling, and i hope it stays that way... but like i said, we have not thrown all our cards on the table.... neither has russia, but i am just that confident in my country i suppose.

note that i said country... not government.




posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Wotan
 


I do know this, based on facts...

if you don't want to acknowledge anything that has been brought up in this thread, then sure you could take the stance that Russia is superior, somehow, because they have less technology, when it comes to war machines... and that they are crazy.

but let's be honest here... the person who spends the most MOST OF THE TIME... is the person who ends up in the lead. im not saying that we are the best simply because we spend all this money, but it is DEFINATELY going to end up being a deciding factor, should this turn into a war...

im not beating my chest here, i have nothing to gain from it... I'm simply saying that when you look at this from a RATIONAL stand point... not one that is afraid of everything, or one that hates america for some reason. it is painfully obvious that we would make short work of Russia, in the state that they are in now.. given them 10-15 years, and they will yet again.. be a formidable opponent... but not yet, not now. they are just getting to a point where they can really rebuild their military. we have had a strong one since day 1.

as much as some of you would hate for this to be true.. but we aren't going anywhere... get used to it. if you don't like the way we do things... stop starting wars, and then expecting the US to finish them...



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SRTkid86
 


I think you need to look back at recent history to see who exactly has started the wars ....... the US, YES THE US.

If you think the US could take on Russia then you are deluded. The same could be said of Russia taking on the US. Both countries are nigh on impossible to invade without a nuclear/biological/chemical exchange of some sort and then they wouldnt be worth invading, so the excercise would be pointless.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
History has also shown time and time again that inferior forces can overcome superior ones, so dont let your so called 'superpower' status get in the way of your ego.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   


Yet still utterly incapable of facing off against an insurgency.


Maloy you're smarter than to bring that up. The USSR couldn't win in Afghanistan and they were fighting the same people. There is only one way to win in wars with insurgents and that is total disregard for human life.





And finally - there will be only one victor, and that is China.


Best quote on this thread.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Maloy you're smarter than to bring that up. The USSR couldn't win in Afghanistan and they were fighting the same people.


True. But I am not claiming that Russia is a mighty and kick-ass power that has some super lazers and black-projects that could do magic, as some are claiming about the U.S.

The fact is an undefeatable conventional military will never exist. Any military is defeatable. And rushing-in with guns blazing thinking that you are invincible is simply retarted. Many people here treat military conflicts as some card game. They think that only because they have better cards (or more expensive military) that they can win the game.

I have never claimed that Russia is stronger than U.S. or can take U.S. one-on-one. What I am claiming is that Russia and U.S. will likely never have a direct conflict - because each would be betting too much on it.



Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
There is only one way to win in wars with insurgents and that is total disregard for human life.


Or better yet - do not start a war where there is a possibility of insurgents to begin with.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by maloy]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
or will allied subs take out the russian fleet. You don't honestly think the NATO strike group are their only assets in the area, do you?

One well placed EMP bomb and the russian fleet becomes a huge mess of floating lilly pads.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by maloy
What I am claiming is that Russia and U.S. will likely never have a direct conflict - because each would be betting too much on it.


You are correct. Russia and the U.S. will never fight with each other. Many people on this board haven't been in any wars and their extent of knowledge is from wikipedia. Just do not argue with them



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by maloy
 


hey don't forget the sharks with laser beams attached to their heads.

those got the job dun during the gulf of tonkin incident


im not saying we are better strictly beacuse of money, or because of our sharks with laser beams attached to their heads. im just saying that it's ludicrous to think that a country who has not had much of an economy, and honestly STILL doesn't. could stand toe to toe with us. the only way for them to fight it out would be through insurgency... simply because we are not allowed to take off the gloves because it would upset the world too much. so we have to sit back and wait for them to shoot at us from the cover of the non-comatant crowds, before we can shoot back.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
im just saying that it's ludicrous to think that a country who has not had much of an economy, and honestly STILL doesn't. could stand toe to toe with us.


They don't need to stand toe to toe with you to make you hurt like it never hurt before. The U.S. military chiefs know this well enough - everyone does. The simple threat that this "war" has a potential to become the most serious conflict in the world (even without nukes), will be enough to keep both sides from making any dumb mistakes.

As I said - no one can be sure that they will win. Wars have the ability to make the impossible possible - to turn a weak and beat-down enemy into an incomprehensible threat in the face of imminent danger and defeat.



Originally posted by SRTkid86
the only way for them to fight it out would be through insurgency


A conflict of that scale is not predictable. There is no "only way" - there is only "maybe", "possibly", "likely", and "we think but we will never know for sure and thats why we won't".



Originally posted by SRTkid86
simply because we are not allowed to take off the gloves because it would upset the world too much.


I think a prospect of such war between Russia and U.S. would be upsetting to the world enough. By then it is doubless that anyone will care beyong their self-preservation instincts.



Originally posted by SRTkid86
so we have to sit back and wait for them to shoot at us from the cover of the non-comatant crowds, before we can shoot back.


You see - the current generation doesn't know a World War. WWII generation is on the way out. A global hot war is an unimaginable awful thing - which is guaranteed to change the way you view the world forever. And that's irregardless of whether you win a lose - you will never want to fight a world war again, or even have prospects of one.


You treat war as a precalculated game. That is what isolated conflicts like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afganistan are. And even they all have a twist.

But a global war with a power like Russia is nothing of the sort. It will not be glorious domination - it would be a mix of bloodshed, destruction, annihilation, and upredictable loses. It is a shame that the last World War has still left some people unimpressed. Perhaps it is because U.S. hasn't seen the climax that Russia or Germany had - the Eastern front. the front where the mighty power became oblitarated, and the final victor lost so much that it can never fully recover in one generation.


This talk of a war between Russia and U.S. is atrocious.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by maloy]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by maloy
 


i think you are overlooking all the times i have repeated myself saying that i don't want a war.... and i would hate to see it... only to find something that you can disagree with.

war is by nature pre-calculated... and to a lot of people IT IS a game.

all i have said is that toe to toe, Russia would get decimated... barring the use of nukes.

im not worried about war with russia like so many people are, i know that it won't happen. because both sides understand that there would be absolutely nothing LEFT to gain by the time a "victor" was decided.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation

Make no mistake, the West has been trying to find a diplomatic resolution to this conflict since it began...


if you are speaking about diplomatic Patriot anti-missiles and radar system that will be placed on Russian border then you are correct...

that is nice too, don't you think?







posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SRTkid86
 


Tell me, barring using nukes, How would the US decimate Russia? There is absolutely no way in hell that the US even with NATO could ever do that.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by twisted_fate
fire enough missiles at those ships....most will get through, so yes, they could destroy nato ships that quickly.

people seem to really underestimate Russia, you'll regret that.


You are right, fire enough, and they could get through and sink a ship. But ther are 10 - 12 of these deployed on a single Agies class destroyer.

The amount of missles required, well that cost would exceed the cost of the destroyer itself.

Think about it. The tomahawk costs the United States about 1.3 million a pop. Okay, Russia would have to launch something like 500 to sink the NATO fleet, spending damn near 1 billion in the process. Do you think the fleet is worth that? No, it isn't. To think Russia even has that many missiles is crazy talk in itself

Look, here is how it is, plain and simple. Russia misplayed their hand and now they look the fool. Not even China is siding with them. Russia Nuking a country, not gonna happen becuase at the first sign of such an attack there won't be a Russia left.

Point blank, no one liked Russia before and now most like them even less. The country is in such a bad state they are yearning for the days of Stalin, you know the guy that killed 5 million of them?

To even think "the bear is back" just show how little most of you know. They have bought 20 new fighters in the last year, total military budget of 36.5 billion last year compared to almost 800 billion (300 billion of which was for war) spent by the United States.

Look, we don't want to deal with Russia, thats why they invaded. The Pipeline. It cuts them out of the picture. But now they know they are screwed, NATO won't talk to them and China just showed them the cold shoulder.

Russia, know what comes to mind when I see Russia? Three letters. LOL.

Those kids need to grow up. Most of them were thugs in their youth (including the Stalin they so yearn for) and are living two decades in the past. The world has passed them by and they are pissed.

LOL Russia.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by crisko
 



Do you really think that your Destroyers defences are that good? How the hell do you know? The US has not fought a Naval War since WW2.

Norway, UK and Australia and even China have proven to you (The US) that the US Fleet is not invulnerable.

There is only one navy that has had recent Naval Warfare experience and that is the Royal Navy.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by crisko
Think about it. The tomahawk costs the United States about 1.3 million a pop.


Think about it - Russia isn't using tomahawks and their missiles cost far less.




Originally posted by crisko
Do you think the fleet is worth that? No, it isn't. To think Russia even has that many missiles is crazy talk in itself


No all Russia has is sticks, stones, and Putin's good looks.


Seriously are so enamoured with your military that are oblivious as to the fact that nothing is invincible should a catastrophe like a global war with Russia erupt (not that it ever will).



Originally posted by crisko
Russia misplayed their hand and now they look the fool.


Russia is saying the same about U.S. and NATO. What's your point? How one looks to others matters very little. This isn't a popularity contest.



Originally posted by crisko
Russia Nuking a country, not gonna happen becuase at the first sign of such an attack there won't be a Russia left.


Why would Russia nuke a country? What country would they nuke?



Originally posted by crisko
Point blank, no one liked Russia before and now most like them even less.


Define "no one". Define "some". Compare and contrast the definitions.



Originally posted by crisko
The country is in such a bad state they are yearning for the days of Stalin.


Yes all Russia has is rusty shovels and potatoes.
The potatoes we can eat, but what will we do with the shovels? I know - Russians will resurrect Stalin and he'll solve everything. We'll sell the potatoes, and use the money to buy new shovels.

I can only imagine that is how Russia looks to Americans.




Originally posted by crisko
you know the guy that killed 5 million of them?


What's you point? How the hell did Stalin join this discussion anyway?



Originally posted by crisko
They have bought 20 new fighters in the last year, total military budget of 36.5 billion last year compared to almost 800 billion (300 billion of which was for war) spent by the United States.


$800 billion? Damn someone has some good money to spend. Oh wait the U.S. is borrowing much of this money. Oh well.

Russia's isn't pretending to be a superpower - and it's not. No one is arguing with that.




Originally posted by crisko
Look, we don't want to deal with Russia, thats why they invaded.


Who did they invade? Canada? There was a minor but highly publicized intervention two weeks ago. That couldn't be what you are talking about could it?




Originally posted by crisko
But now they know they are screwed, NATO won't talk to them and China just showed them the cold shoulder.


How are they screwed? Did they lose your popularity contest? I am sure Russia is mighty distraught.



Originally posted by crisko
Russia, know what comes to mind when I see Russia? Three letters. LOL.


Glad that you are well entertained. At least Russia puts a smile on your face.



Originally posted by crisko
Those kids need to grow up.


What kids?



Originally posted by crisko
Most of them were thugs in their youth (including the Stalin they so yearn for) and are living two decades in the past.


I wasn't aware that Stalin is still alive. Thugs? Well it's a thug world, a gangster's paradise. I am sure U.S. is run by soccer moms and hippies.



Originally posted by crisko
The world has passed them by and they are pissed.


Back to the popularity contest. Yep - Russia just lost a beauty pageant, and now it's off to make the world pay. Sounds like some bad movie plot - but you never know, it could be a cult classic.



Originally posted by crisko
LOL Russia.


LOL world. What a silly place.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by maloy]

[edit on 30-8-2008 by maloy]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by donhuangenaro

Originally posted by mattifikation

Make no mistake, the West has been trying to find a diplomatic resolution to this conflict since it began...


if you are speaking about diplomatic Patriot anti-missiles and radar system that will be placed on Russian border then you are correct...

that is nice too, don't you think?



Well said.
Glad I read your post, I was going to say the same thing.. and I live in USA. Who are we to place a missle shield on someone else's continent anyway? The Bush administration is trying to provoke a world war with their arrogance.They make us all look very, very bad in the eyes of the world.
Impeach Bush now!



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Look reality is the United States needs a missile defense system in Europe for 2 reasons

1st it there to counter rogue threats from middle eastern countries namely Iran

2nd and most important is it takes Russia out of the icbm threat capability and ever since the break up of the soviet union the united states has worried about how much control there central government has over its military.


Doctrine of limited nuclear war

According to a Russian military doctrine stated in 2003, tactical nuclear weapons (Strategic Deterrence Forces) could be used to "prevent political pressure against Russia and her allies (Armenia, Belarus, Serbia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan)." Thus, the Russian leadership "is officially contemplating a limited nuclear war".[2]


Russia possesses the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction in the world. Russia declared an arsenal of 40,000 tons of chemical weapons in 1997 and is said to have had around 6681 nuclear weapons stockpiled in 2005!

1. Land based Strategic Rocket Forces: 489 missiles carrying up to 1,788 warheads; they employ immobile (silos), like SS-18 Satan, and mobile delivery systems, like SS-27 Topol M.
2. Sea based Strategic Fleet: 12 submarines carrying up to 609 warheads; they employ delivery systems like SS-N-30 Bulava.
3. Strategic Aviation: 237 bombers(16 Tu-160,63 Tu-95,and 158 Tu-22m) carrying up to 884 Cruise missiles.

Now if you think the Russians are not a threat your insane. Do I believe there saber rattling yes. but can we afford to ignore this? Russia knows if missile defence is set up in Europe they lose there bargaining chip to play on the world stage




Despite claims to the contrary, U.S. interceptors launched from a Polish site could intercept the 18 to 25 Russian SS-25 ICBMs based in Vypolzovo, roughly 340 kilometers northwest of Moscow. Furthermore, missiles launched from all of the other European-based Russian ICBM fields would be much easier to engage. The 40 percent faster speed of the defense interceptors relative to the ICBMs and the early-tracking information provided by the EMR in the Czech Republic would allow the defense system to engage essentially all Russian ICBMs launched against the continental United States from Russian sites west of the Urals. It is difficult to see why any well-informed Russian analyst would not find such a potential situation alarming.


Now looking At this scary scenario the only logical thing is to get the EU make Russia feel likes its not excluded from the continent. There all scaredhistory is not easily forgotten and the US needs to get more dialog with Russia. when Putin took over leadership thing quickly detereted.

PS do they still cell those bunkers that were big in the 1950s if not have idea for new company





posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


vwt.d2g.com:8081...

thats the range of the shahab 3 - so , who does it threaten again?


the US missile interceptors are 200 miles north of its maximum range



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


And that is the crux of the whole matter. It is to defend the US from missile attack but are placed in Europe. A bit selfish dont you think?

The US puts up a missile shield in someone else's country therefore making that said country a bloody great target ...... nice friends we have. With friends like you, who needs enemies.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join