Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

To all fools who thinks Russia is falling apart.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 01:50 AM
link   
I wanna say that for people who follow all of this type of conspiracy crap... you sure are ignorant about russia's strength.

Russia has more weapons and sometimes better weapons than the US.

They have 5000 choppers
mostly made up of Mi-24's,Mi8/Mi17's, though they have around 50 Mi-26's, 8 Ka-50's and a few Mi-28's.

Armour... Russia's best strength 48,270

1,200 T-55's
2,200 T-62's
4,300 T-64A/B
9,700 T-72L/M
4,500 T-80's
120 T-90's
150 PT76 Light tanks
2,200 BRDM1/2 recon
12,200 BMP 1/2/3
700 BRM-1k
1,000 BTR-50's
5,200 BTR-60/70/80
4,800 MTLB armoured personnel carriers

artillary is about 25,307

Nuclear Missiles is about 28,000

Their aircraft is around 5000

Their econcomy is rising by 4% which is about second to china's booming 8%.


ALSO ABOUT CHECHNYA: The war is basically over. The chechens have lost and their leader Bersayev is dead. Just Russia is angered over pankisi Gorge.




posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 01:54 AM
link   
I agree, Russia's armory puts the US's to shame. However, having an economical increase of 4% means nothing. If your country had a $1 value, and your country was increasing it's economy by 4%, it would only have $1.04. If the value was $10, it would increase to $10.40. $.36 difference. The current economical balance is relevant to the arguement, and Russia's economy collapsed after the breakup of the USSR.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 01:58 AM
link   
I agree with this post in that the idea that Russia, the world's largest country in terms of size, falling apart is just plain ludicrous.

Although the primary investors such as the Rockefellers and Rothschilds pulled out their investments shortly before and after Glasnost and Perestroika (the end of communism of the USSR), Russia has done well with itself in terms of reconstruction.

Despite the IMF's attempted hijacking of the Rouble, Russian's currency, via deflation, the Russian economy is well on its way to excellence.

Furthermore, it has demonstrated an intriguing sense of defiance what with the canning of the Yukos boss who wanted to sell the oil assets to ExxonMobil, a Rockefeller conglomerate. This action made me quite proud to be a fan of Russian interests.

I am saying this not because in a war I would choose one side or the other, but instead because I am more interested in seeing a promotion of friendship between Russia and the West (even the US).

Russia is quite the amazing country. It has survived numerous attempts at invasion over the centuries, and has preserved its old culture quite well despite the influences of the Vatican and other impositions.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Ivan, while I do not disagree that Russia is still a major force, get some of your facts right. 28,000 nuclear missles


Let me see where you are getting your info from.

P.S. - all those missles won't do you much good if they don't work - check out what happened in their last war games.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Nevermind Russia, I believe the US is falling apart.


dz

posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 02:13 AM
link   
28,000 nuclear missiles?

What in gods name do you need 28k of them for? What're you trying to annihilate the entire damn solar system?



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dz
28,000 nuclear missiles?

What in gods name do you need 28k of them for? What're you trying to annihilate the entire damn solar system?


Well, from what I've found, a conservative estimate of Russia's nukes is 20k. America is 10k. The next runner up? France, with 235 declared nukes. For whatever reason, the US and USSR believed the number was relevant, despite the part that 20 of them (current technology) would destroy the world.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 04:02 AM
link   
there is lots of sites that say Russia has over 20K.

Be shocked but this is true. Remember, deny ignorance.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Check this post out.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoMrAdE_IvAn
I wanna say that for people who follow all of this type of conspiracy crap... you sure are ignorant about russia's strength.

Russia has more weapons and sometimes better weapons than the US.


Now can you provide us with the numbers for equipment that is actually working?

Most of your equipment have been stripped of parts and sold to other countries for cash.

I agree that you have a lot, but it doesn't do you much good if it isn't fully functional.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 06:44 AM
link   
I think clear and honest answers on the maintenance questions are in order here. Yes, Russia still has a lot of "stuff" - but is that "stuff" working equipment, or rusting heaps of doodoo?

Russia's satellite coverage has just been decimated to the point it's virtually non-existent, or at least that was the case in 1998-2000. Has anything improved there? Do they have more coverage?

Yeah, they can route through our satellite pipeline when trying to communicate with the space station, but I've got a feeling our network is not going to be available to them when they're getting ready to launch an ICBM at us... *
* .

And a LOT of the nuke arsenal was/is? in Kazakhistan...has anybody got a clue if anybody is doing a darned thing to even keep up with inventory let alone perform scheduled maintenance?

And to the economic question: Russia is sitting on some the world's biggest oil and gas reserves - and have been for YEARS, but still don't have the infrastructure to exploit this. That doesn't sound like the actions of a burgeoning economy to me.

[Edited on 4-28-2004 by Valhall]



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 06:51 AM
link   
this is the full force that is functional. the USSR had alot more vehicles than this... i mean A LOT MORE.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I think clear and honest answers on the maintenance questions are in order here. Yes, Russia still has a lot of "stuff" - but is that "stuff" working equipment, or rusting heaps of doodoo?

Russia's satellite coverage has just been decimated to the point it's virtually non-existent, or at least that was the case in 1998-2000. Has anything improved there? Do they have more coverage?

Yeah, they can route through our satellite pipeline when trying to communicate with the space station, but I've got a feeling our network is not going to be available to them when they're getting ready to launch an ICBM at us... *
* .

And a LOT of the nuke arsenal was/is? in Kazakhistan...has anybody got a clue if anybody is doing a darned thing to even keep up with inventory let alone perform scheduled maintenance?

And to the economic question: Russia is sitting on some the world's biggest oil and gas reserves - and have been for YEARS, but still don't have the infrastructure to exploit this. That doesn't sound like the actions of a burgeoning economy to me.

[Edited on 4-28-2004 by Valhall]


What you ask is classified information. How do you expect me to answer?

However these vehicles all have been accounted for as functional even by western analysts.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
I agree, Russia's armory puts the US's to shame. However, having an economical increase of 4% means nothing. If your country had a $1 value, and your country was increasing it's economy by 4%, it would only have $1.04. If the value was $10, it would increase to $10.40. $.36 difference. The current economical balance is relevant to the arguement, and Russia's economy collapsed after the breakup of the USSR.



4? i dont remember where.. but i read its about at 8 or 5, google it up..



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 07:18 AM
link   
bunch of BS coming out of you val



WHO GETS YOUR ASS TO THE ISS NOW EH?


you have absolutly no idea how much military satellites russia has..

russia also is the only nation with operational ABM defence,

check this video:
www.missilethreat.com...


and wtf is this

Originally posted by Valhall
but I've got a feeling our network is not going to be available to them when they're getting ready to launch an ICBM at us... *
* .



Strategic Defense
The system that are traditionally considered part of strategic defense—missile defense, the early-warning system, space surveillance and anti-satellite systems—are currently included into the 3rd Space and Missile Defense Army, which is part of the Space Forces. The Space Forces are a separate branch of Russia's Armed Forces, subordinated directly to the General Staff.

The army is responisble for "continuious observation of missile launches and space objects and delivering early warning information to the command centers of the Supreme High Command anf General Staff, as well as for space surveiilance and defense of Moscow from ballistic missiles and their warheads."



As of September 2003 the space part of the Russian early-warning system includes three operational satellites—two on highly-elliptical orbits (HEO) and one on a geostationary orbit (GEO).

All three satellites—Cosmos-2379 (GEO, launched on 24 Aug 2002, NORAD catalog number 26892), Cosmos-2388 (HEO, 1 Apr 2002, 27409), and Cosmos-2393 (HEO, 24 Dec 2002, 27613)—satellites. They are part of the US-KS early-warning system, known also as Oko. This system was built to detect launches of ballistic missiles from the U.S. territory


[Edited on 28-4-2004 by Flanker]



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flanker
WHO GETS YOUR ASS TO THE ISS NOW EH?



Too bad you can't afford to to that without selling seats.

Wonder if you will ever get the money together to field the follow on to the Soyuz?



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by Flanker
WHO GETS YOUR ASS TO THE ISS NOW EH?



Too bad you can't afford to to that without selling seats.

Wonder if you will ever get the money together to field the follow on to the Soyuz?




give it another 6-10 years, and it will afford..
, somewhere around that time new manned space vehicle should already be avalible..

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by Flanker]



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake


Well, from what I've found, a conservative estimate of Russia's nukes is 20k. America is 10k. The next runner up? France, with 235 declared nukes. For whatever reason, the US and USSR believed the number was relevant, despite the part that 20 of them (current technology) would destroy the world.



20?

Hasn't something like 2000 nukes been exploded on Earth?
I know i read that about 2000 times more radiation that was dropped on Nagasaki in Japan witht hat 1 nuclear bomb in WW2, has been dropped on Bagdad with DU weapons....

How much more powerful are todays nukes?

I thought they made nukes smaller today in power, than big nukes coz it's better to say use three, 9KiloTonne nukes to wipeout a city than to use a 10 MegaTonne nuke.

The biggest nuke exploded was by russia and that blew at 50 MegaTonne... I REALLY dont think 20 of those nukes would destroy the world....



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flanker
give it another 6-10 years, and it will afford..
, somewhere around that time new manned space vehicle should already be avalible..


Is that the same time as when you will start paying for your own modules on the ISS?



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 08:47 AM
link   
( quoted )"Hasn't something like 2000 nukes been exploded on Earth?
I know i read that about 2000 times more radiation that was dropped on Nagasaki in Japan witht hat 1 nuclear bomb in WW2, has been dropped on Bagdad with DU weapons.... "(/quote)
1st thing if 2000 nukes have been detenated* on earth then its no wonder why we have all the global changes then. second russia might have alot of weps compared to US but im sure US has Quality on their side along with enuff pointed at every major an minor threat out there. not to mention the US's Endless Countermeasures.

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by Trance]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join