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