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.

 

United States v.s. Russia?

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop


By god, the mans right.

We are being fought to a stalemate in iraq after 3-4 years..but russia.. pfft... we'll have them in 12 months
Out of interest though, how does an invading army who has to SHIP and FLY all its supplies from home, have an advatge over the DEFENDING country in food?


pull the other one mate!

[edit on 18-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]


Iraq - 2 isnt a fair test because the US is having to show ALOT of restraint in the way it is fighting the insurgents. For political reasons the US, especially in recent wars, has not fought to its fullest capability.

That aside....

fighting Russia would definately be an ugly war...

Siberia is so damn big our forces would be pretty spread out.

To be honest, after the cold war I really doubt half their ICBMs are still able to fly....I wouldnt want to chance it though as the Russians build everything in their military with one thing in mind.... DURABILITY.

I do believe the Russians have recently added a new ICBM to their arsenal called "Topol-M". A mobile ICBM reminiscent of a SCUD launcher.




posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Prince you have been watching to many movies the Ruskies would gas the lot of you. I understand that one would want to paint their country in the strongest light but one has to remove emotion and look at the problem using logic. You say Russia got its Butt kicked in Afganistan and stalemate in Checnia, I could say they beat the Germans in WW2 and Napoleon. The fact remains that America has never had to fight a war on its own territory so it is pure speculation to say how it would do. On ther other hand Russia has had many invasions and won them all. As I said before its not just about counting the hardware, the most important and greatest asset is the mindset of the people. Look at Vietnam, America was far stronger militarily and its supply and manufacturing base was safe and secure but that did not gurantee a win did it. Its a very true saying, never understimate an enemy.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Princeofpeace

Umm..if youve been reading, i think the board has gone to the premise of a conventional war between the 2 because we all know nuclear is a moot point. Ok?


I have been reading Prince, nuclear is NOT a moot point. Umkay?


If Russian didn't have nukes (or at least as many as they did) then I might get on board there.


But honestly, I don't mean to be confrontational but WHO in there right mind would believe that Russia would allow us to defeat them without them using nukes? What I'm trying to say is that if ANY kind of conflict of the nature spoken of in this thread happens, it -has- to end with someone loosing.. Comprende? I know there has been an implied premise of an American/Russian confrontation NOT using nukes but I think you will find that is not going to be possible. Regardless of what any of you think.. Russia is NOT a tinpot nation and if any conflict moves 'beyond the point of no return' and one side starts loosing I PROMISE you nukes are going to be involved. There is no such thing as a possibility of a Vietnam/Iraq quagmire involving an American and Russian conflict.


Educate yourself.. You can start here:




en.wikipedia.org...


The doctrine assumes that each side has enough weaponry to destroy the other side and that either side, if attacked FOR ANY REASON by the other, would retaliate with equal or greater force. The expected result is an immediate escalation resulting in both combatants' total and assured destruction. It is now generally assumed that the nuclear fallout or nuclear winter resulting from a large scale nuclear war would bring about worldwide devastation, though this was not a critical assumption to the theory of MAD.



What makes you think that any of this has changed?

North Korea, at least at this point in time, could probably not do much more than set off a 'few' nukes and maybe 'spark' a worldwide conflagration but RUSSIA has enough nukes to turn ALL of America into a glass pit only God knows HOW DEEP.


It's doesn't matter who will win a ground/air war between American and Russia.


You can't escape or get around this so stop trying, I don't care what the premise of this thread is. I have my own premise.



Again, I REPEAT.. (For the umpteenth time) If we don't have a fool proof way to keep Russias' nuclear assets from reaching our mainland WE CAN NOT WIN A BATTLE WITH RUSSIA.



[edit on 21-10-2006 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Ummm the both going nuclear is a moot point because this thread wouldnt even be needed to debate who would win between the US and Russia. Both would be destroyed. Mooot point. End of thread. Actually no need for thread to be started.

If however you put the nuclear issue aside and look at who would win in a conventional war, then you have a thread worthy of debate. Comprende?



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Hmmm...Russia left Afghanistan with its tail between its legs...we have done a LOT more there than Russia ever did in that country. And Iraq is not Chechnya. Russia cant even squash an extremely poor break away republic like Chechnya yet you are going to say because we havent changed the minds of the insurgents in Iraq then Russia could beat the US? Unbelievable. Flawed logic my friend...very flawed.


Many people like to bring Afganistan and Chechnya up as example of Russia's military inferiority. However the relative ignorance of much of the world to the actual details of those wars, renders these opinions poorly formulated and groundless. I am sure you know a lot about America's war in Vietnam and War On Terrorism. But without a similarly thorough comprehension of Russia's wars, any comparison would also be poorly formulated.


When Soviet Union (not just Russia) fought in Afganistan, war was the last thing on people's and politician's minds. Soviet Union was going through immense political and economic changes (opening market, privatization, glasnost, easing of political barriers, revolts in Eastern Europe). There was an undercover revolution taking place from 1985 on (under Gorbachev). Politicians stopped caring about the war. Funds for the military were severly cut back (not the thing to do during a war). Soldiers received little back-up or support from 1984 on (when the war started turning against the Russians).

So it was in no way a dedicated war (like US fighting in Iraq now). If Soviet Union paid full attention to it, intead of glastnost, I assure you that the results would have been quickly reversed in Russia's favor. It was a faulted campaign, half-abandoned soon after its start. I know people, who have taken part in that war. The state of Russian military in the late 80's was far worse and far more neglected than at any previous time, or today. So do not compare it to Vietnam or Iraq, which are fully dedicated wars, with complete war funding and endless resources from the federal government.



Chechnya is not a poor break away republic with a few goat herders, contrary to what you believe. Due to its support for formation of an Islamic Nation (possibly based on Sharia), it has received immense help from over a dozen Muslim countries around the world. This help was in the form of money (billions of dollars), sponsored lobbyists in Europe and the US, weaponry, and trained insurgent mercenaries. By 2000, over a half of fighters for rebel cause were non-Chechens. Some of these insurgents included well-trained, well-armed, and well-funded mercenaries from the Middle East. Among them were CIA-trained groups from the Afganistan era. Also Chechen rebels constantly retreated into Georgia's mountains (Pankisii Gorge), when the Russians launched offenses. The Russians were unable to pursue them into Georgia for political reasons.

Also the Chechen wars, were for the most part NOT all out military campaigns (like US in Vietnam). Russia kept away from bombing civilian areas. If they did, they would warn the civilians to retreat (gave the rebels a chance to escape as well). There were several instances in the first war (1992-1996), when civilians were bombed, but Russians tried to avoid this as much as possible.

And at the end- RUSSIA WON THE WAR IN CHECHNYA. If you are not aware, Chechnya is under full Russian control right now. All of the original rebel leaders were killed. The insurgents still left, number in the low thousands, and mostly hide out in Georgia. The last attack on the Russian military was many months ago (compare to over 70 US soldiers dead in Iraq in just October). Russia won the war. Today Chechnya is Russia.



So I say- flawed logic my friend. If you want to talk about Russia's military mistakes, do some research. As for the American mistakes- I'll leave that up to you to decipher. However we can reasonably conclude that at least one of the two learned from its mistakes. Which one? Not the one that will be responsible for telling the families of 70 soldiers this month, why Iraq War is a justifiable cause for their death.



And it is rather silly theorizing on who will win a show down between the US and Russia. US is a superpower, with a military budget higher than that of the rest of the world combined. Russia today is primarily concerned with building its economy. Russia has no reason to make immense investments in its military today, because the Cold War is over, it has all the oil it will ever need, and it makes sure that its presidential candidates are at least intelligent.

But nonetheless, Russia still possesses a worthy force capable of self defense (figuring that if a war break out Russia would be the one attacked). If the war in presumed to be non-nuclear - the only war where there can be a winner - it would obviously be the biggest military show down ever seen. America's navy and airforce are no doubt superior by today's standards and by sheer numbers (a dozen of aircraft carriers vs. one of Russia). But the ground forces are far limited in number and capability. Russia's size is immense, and it is not all highways and desert where its easy to roll through. Russian equipment it far more superior on rough terrain and swamps and snow than is American. US would never be able to destroy's all of Russia's military forces. And the struggle in Iraq underlines their incapability and unpreparedness to wage warfare in modern and urban environment.

[edit on 21-10-2006 by maloy]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Sure thing. I agree 100%. If this was some attempt by the US to go in and invade Russia and impose regime change then yeah i think that would be dammed near impossible. Russia's equipment however is nowhere near better than the Americans as far as fighting in the snow or whatever. Our stuff was not built to fight in optimum conditions, it was made to fight in deserts, sand, mountains, snow etc and the technology is superior.

What is the goal of this conflict as well? To take Moscow? Im sure we could do it. Not saying we would do it and there would be peace LOL. But it could be done. Glad someone finally qualified this conflict as saying it would be fighting a defensive Russia insenuating the US invaded them. It sure would be interesting to see what would happen if the converse were true? Russia come here.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Russias teeth are rusty and have fallen out lets face it Russia is practicly still using world war 2 technology In a real war against any western country not just America they would lose and lose fast.

Certainly America would defeat Russia with ease the Russian threat is gone. I understand Russians are bitter about the third world country they have become trying to keep up with American technologicly and failing so utterly. They now resort to making up weapons (scalar, plasma stealth, etc) but it won't change reality.

As for Russia's Nuclear threat would those badly kept missiles even leave their silos I for one have my doubts. If they even did given russian electronics would they even hit the right continent ? Maybe more than likely they wouldn't. If they did would they detonate after so long again doubtfull given Russian engineering.

The fact Russia's Army are mere conscripts and still using battered old ak47's when nearly every other country has a Professional well trained army with the latest equipment.

All in all Russia's huge that is perhaps the only advantage and protection they have it's really no contest America would win and win big.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shamanator
Russias teeth are rusty and have fallen out lets face it Russia is practicly still using world war 2 technology In a real war against any western country not just America they would lose and lose fast.


Practically WW2 technology? Mig 25, Mig 29, Su 37, Ka-52, Tu-160, the Typhoon and Akula submarines, the T-90 MBT - are these the WW2 technology you are talking about. This and other Russian technology has always been on par with anything the West could offer. Hell if you are gonna say its WW2 technology, why not just refer to it as the Napoleon era technology. Or better yet the Byzantine era equipment maybe? And I guess the Americans are struggling in Iraq with all their equipment back from the Civil War. Come on- how realistic is your description?

Maybe its time for reality to take over- but I guess little stands in the way of bias and simple mindedness.


Originally posted by Shamanator
Certainly America would defeat Russia with ease the Russian threat is gone. I understand Russians are bitter about the third world country they have become trying to keep up with American technologicly and failing so utterly. They now resort to making up weapons (scalar, plasma stealth, etc) but it won't change reality.


Wow. Defeat Russia with ease? Maybe all the Great US needs to do is blow really hard and Russia will collapse like a straw house? Maybe you can alone defeat Russia with an H2 hummer and a BB gun. Here is a thought- the largest army in the world at its time- Hitler's war machine was completely obliterated during operation Barbarossa. Napolean lost the war in Russia without a single full scale battle. The greatest underestimations in history resulted in the greatest upsets in history. And underestimating the defensive force, and people's enthusiasm in Russia, would in an event of war deal a great blow to the US- a blow that would have likely ended its superpower status.

Third world country they have become? It is easy to label some country you have never been in, and know very little about, as a third country. I personally could like to label Harlem, Camden, and dozens of other American ghettos as a third world country, but I know the US and its people (even the poorest of them) far better than do that. I guess you still think of China as a poor colony of peasants growing rice for their European overlords? Third/First world nomenclature belongs in the depths of 20th century. The world has changed much, even if some attitudes have not.

Ignorance is a concept that is abused all too often, but in this case I am afraid that it is the only concept that is of reasonable explanation for the inconclusive analysis you provide.


Originally posted by Shamanator
As for Russia's Nuclear threat would those badly kept missiles even leave their silos I for one have my doubts. If they even did given russian electronics would they even hit the right continent ? Maybe more than likely they wouldn't. If they did would they detonate after so long again doubtfull given Russian engineering.


Yep. Heck Russians aren't even using missiles. They are taking painted tree trunks, and parading them around Moscow pretending they have rockets. And all those rockets they launched into space at the onstart of the space race- I guess those were exceptions to your rule? In reality- the Topol-M ground-transported ballistic missile system is proven to be the most advanced in the world, as well as the R-36M Voivode ICBM system- which still has nothing on par with it in the West. US was shaking in its boots throughout the Cold War because of these nuclear delivery systems. They had good reason to fear them, because the US Minuteman and Peacekeeper are by comparison far inferior to R-36M, even by today's standards.

And as recently as this year, Russia has succesfully conducted tests of its ICBM systems, every time hitting precisely on target over the range of over 3,000 miles. But I guess according to you these missiles would still fail to detonated because of the universal law of Russian Inferiority...



Originally posted by Shamanator
The fact Russia's Army are mere conscripts and still using battered old ak47's when nearly every other country has a Professional well trained army with the latest equipment.


Who said they are using ak47's? By all accounts they are still fighting with sticks and stones. How much do you know about Russia's military really? ak47 has long been succeeded by newer and newer generations of assault rifles. The equipment of Russian forces is not far behind that of the US, and certainly at least as advanced as that of the rest of the world. Do you know even 1 fact about Russia's military today?

Even if ak47's in their original configuration were still used in Russia, their reliability and power are still hardly matched today.


Originally posted by Shamanator
All in all Russia's huge that is perhaps the only advantage and protection they have it's really no contest America would win and win big.


Well at least all in Russia is huge
. I'll take that as a compliment being Russian and all.

US might be better armed today than Russia. But it is still the second most powerful force in the world- without any doubt. An all out fight would lead to so many casualties on all sides, that the real winner of such conflict could only be someone like China- who will come out on top as a new superpower. US would never defeat Russia, and would never take Moscow. These Cold War era fantasies of yours belong in Hollywood. In reality, the immense numbers of Russian artillery, missile systems (including battlefield ballistic missiles and cruise missiles), an immense number of mechanized land infantry, and a heavy backup from naval and air forces by Russia would successfully prevent any American advance into Russia.

Obviously Russia is incapable of attacking mainland US, other than its ICBMs and nuclear submarines. But as I said, the only thing Russia is concerned about today is self-defence in a very unlikely chance of foreign aggression towards it. So any fantasy about the Russkies landing in New York can be eliminated by common sense. Russian military never considered invading the US, and was not created with any such fantasy in mind.

[edit on 21-10-2006 by maloy]



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Yeah but being armed with a million rifles isnt the same as being armed with one hundred thousand machine guns.


While Russia's technology may not be WW2, it is much farther behind than the US which is using its military hardware constantly and it is always being tweaked to be the best possible........state of the art. And this is what they let us see.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Yeah but being armed with a million rifles isnt the same as being armed with one hundred thousand machine guns.


While Russia's technology may not be WW2, it is much farther behind than the US which is using its military hardware constantly and it is always being tweaked to be the best possible........state of the art. And this is what they let us see.


Without concrete facts and statistical and analytical conlusions, your deductions about excessive inferiority of Russian equipment by comparison to that of the US is hard to see.

No doubt much of the latest equipment is somewhat superior due to new and intensive Research and Development in order to maintain America's fighting force on top. However I would hardly classify Russian counterpart equipment as vastly inferior. Russia also has research and development in progress, and the military budget is growing at a good pace thanks to oil exports and larger federal budger. Russia is also developing a 5th generation jet fighter, as well as new MBT and Naval weapon systems technology. Nobody is standing still, especially such countries that require enough force to have influence on the world stage.

Many talk about whose stuff is better- and that talk is completely erroneous. Some compare the failure of Arab countries possessing Russian technology in wars against the US and Israel. However, considering far inferior training, the not-so-new generations of technology, and lack of troop morale and military ethics- I would say that this arguement too is erroneous.

There has never been a show down between Russian and American troops in direct combat, with the newest equipment of both sides. Thus it would be impossible to conclusively deduct that one or the other is better. But just judging by the immense funds allocated to the American military, I would say that currently they are to some degree superior (but not as you say by a large degree). It is also a known that US spends abnormally large amount of money for technology that might not actually be worth it, or battleworthy at all (reliability, superiority to prior systems). And a large portion of these military funds goes not just towards R&D, but also towards fighting wars of questionable justification. These wars are bogging down America's military, and are consuming immense federal funds.

Russian technology has always proven to be rugged and comparatively reliable, if not necessarily technologically superior. And in the Russian climate (which has been cause for defeat of many armies), calls for a trade off between ruggedness and technology. US tanks and equipment was not designed to fight in Russia as you say. The Cold War era equipment is designed to fight in Europe, and the current more oriented towards para-military conflicts such as Iraq.

So the Russians are better adapted to fighting on their soil, and no doubt the US is better adapted to fighting on theirs. And if either power was to attempt an invasion of the other, the result would be catasrophic for it. Neither would win conclusively.



posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   
So the Russians are better adapted to fighting on their soil, and no doubt the US is better adapted to fighting on theirs. And if either power was to attempt an invasion of the other, the result would be catasrophic for it. Neither would win conclusively.


Exactly...this is what i posted earlier on this thread and i got caught hell about a one sentence reply. Yours basically summed up what i said.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Prince and Sham, You are both absolutely clueless and one wonders where you get your imformation from, maybe you should do some real unbiased research before you post. Towards the end of ww2 leaders in the west were genuinly concerened that Stalin might not stop in Germany but might continue right on to the Atlantic. Russia at this time had 12.5 Million men and women under arms, thats why the bombs were dropped on Japan, the Japs were already beaten, but the object of the bomb was does it work and to send a clear message to Stalin that any attempts to move westward would be met with a similar fate. Their current force numbers are not far behind the US and they have 20million in reserve, also Russia hads the benefit of not having its forces spread all over the world as America does.

Where do you think America gets its rocket technology from, the Russians and people like Von Braun. The shuttle is still using Russian rocket technology, and who shot the u2 spy plane down, oh it was those backward savages in Russia, your not related to Hitler are you because he made the same mistake with the Russians. Thirld world country were did you get that idea from, for the last 7 years Russia has had a trade surplus not 9 trillion dollars of debt. Russia has a massive nuke capability that is not what you think it is, If you don tbelieve any of this fine, go and do your own research and stop watching those bull# movies where the America always wins. This argument is not about favouring one country over another its about looking at the problem objectively and not clouding ones thought process with patriotism and emotion.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Prince and Sham, You are both absolutely clueless and one wonders where you get your imformation from, maybe you should do some real unbiased research before you post. Towards the end of ww2 leaders in the west were genuinly concerened that Stalin might not stop in Germany but might continue right on to the Atlantic. Russia at this time had 12.5 Million men and women under arms, thats why the bombs were dropped on Japan, the Japs were already beaten, but the object of the bomb was does it work and to send a clear message to Stalin that any attempts to move westward would be met with a similar fate. Their current force numbers are not far behind the US and they have 20million in reserve, also Russia hads the benefit of not having its forces spread all over the world as America does.


I believe that the bombs dropped on Japan had more to do with the possibility of Russia attacking Japan than advancing through Europe. As soon as victory was declared in Europe (VE day), Russia ceased advancing, although the war in Japan was still being waged. And to my knowledge, Russia never considered advancing past Germany, because although the forces were strong and the needed resources already mobilized, the war had already taken an immense toll on the nation. Germany and Eastern Europe have indeed been on the agenda ever since Russia started pushing back the German assault. However after the D-Day and landing in Normandy, any possibility of advancing west past Germany (or south of it for that matter) were scratched. The Yalta conferrence also finalized this decision. Even without the atomic bomb demonstration, Russia would not have stretched their forces any further. Although the bombs were a sign of the impending Cold War, at that time they had little to do with Europe.

The bombs dropped on Japan, were primarily meant to end the war as soon as possible, insuring that post-war Japan fell under US control, and not Russian. Immediately after victory in Europe, Russia started transfering troops to the far East in preparation to attack Japan. And they would have attacked Japan soon, if not for Japan surrendering. If this attack happened, Much of Japan would have fallen under Russian control, and US could not afford that with all of Eastern Europe gone already.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Shamanator

Russias teeth are rusty and have fallen out lets face it Russia is practicly still using world war 2 technology In a real war against any western country not just America they would lose and lose fast.



Her teeth may be rusty and have fallen out but her NUKES HAVENT.



Russia is NOT going to loose. She is kind'a like a person with a huge bomb strapped around her waist. She may be defeatable on ground and air but because of ALL the nukes she has in her arsenal that can REACH all around the world that simply does NOT MATTER. Jeeeeez loooouuise!

There is not going to be such thing as a 'limited' war between Russia and America.. It's NOT going to happen. It might start out that way but it IS going to end in the way I (And a TON of other credible sources/common sense) have specified priori.
So, again.. and again,, and agaaaain.. It doesn't matter who will 'win' in a ground or air campaign.







[edit on 22-10-2006 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Exactly as i have been saying all along...people read!!! The war between Russia and the US (if nukes are used) would produce NO WINNER!!! So why even have this thread in the first place??????

There is nothing to debate unless you want to theorize a CONVENTIONAL war between the 2. Russia has outdated equipment and they cannot even afford to put fuel into everything they do have. How long would they fight before running out of gas? How are they going to get all their equipment over here to fight us anyway? They do not have the resources to launch any type of conventional attack on the US.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Exactly as i have been saying all along...people read!!! The war between Russia and the US (if nukes are used) would produce NO WINNER!!! So why even have this thread in the first place??????


I believe the idea of the thread, is to theorize on what would have happened in Russia and US fought a war with no nukes, under express agreement not to use them. Countries have fought in the past, where both possessed nuclear weapons, yet were determined to avoid using them at all costs.

Of course if such a limited war did have a winner at first, the loser would most likely use the nukes in the end to seal the deal. So to that extent the arguement is useless.

However with people saying how weak and incompetent the Russian army is- it arouses some concern. Its one thing to call the Russian army less capable and smaller than that of US, but its another to completely write it off as useless, inferior and incomptent as you did- all of which I can argue are completely false conclusions. Russian army is still without any doubt the second most powerful force in the world. And if according to you the second most powerful force in the world isn't worth squat- why is US having so much trouble fighting the insurgent para military group which cannot amount to being anywhere near the top ranks of military power in the world?



Originally posted by princeofpeace
There is nothing to debate unless you want to theorize a CONVENTIONAL war between the 2. Russia has outdated equipment and they cannot even afford to put fuel into everything they do have. How long would they fight before running out of gas? How are they going to get all their equipment over here to fight us anyway? They do not have the resources to launch any type of conventional attack on the US.


Outdated equipment? A two year old home PC, or a ten year old car can be outdated equipment by consumer standards. Tell me- by what standards do you so judge the Russian army? Military equipment was created to last for tens of years, sometimes even half a century. With proper maintenance and periodic modernization updates with new combat systems, the life of equipment can be prolonged by a lot. And this is what Russia did and is still doing to its key equipment. Aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers, submarines, and heavy lift bombers are capable of serving for over 30 years. Russia did "throw away" alot of Cold War era stuff because it did not need it anymore. However it did hold on to a sizeable contigent of combat systems which are well mainteined and modernized. Furthermore new submarines, ships, tanks and jets are being assembled in Russia right now. Military contracts are mounting.

The US also disposed of much of its Cold War era equipment without replacing it by anything new in such large numbers. Did you ever see the many dozens of naval ships rotting away in Philadelphia harbor, and around the US? Or hundreds military jets sitting unmaintained and virtually abandoned in bases in the Midwest and South US? Current means call for a need of smaller but more capable armed forces, and everyone around the world is adjusting- Russia not the least.


Cannot afford to put fuel into everything they have? Where did you dig this senseless piece of information out of? Russian budget surplus in the last 5 years has been growing faster than any country in Europe. And we are not talking cents here- tens of billions of dollars annually.

Russia doesn't need to buy any gas or petrol. It is the largest net exporter of oil and gas in the world today (officially exceeded Saudi Arabia this year). Most of the oil and energy firms are owned in part by the federal government. Russia never had a problem with energy supplies, unlike the US where fluctuating oil prices can throw the whole economy out of whack.

And as was said- Russia has no need to attack the US. It has never been realistically considered and today its out of the question (just as China attacking US). However if the US goes knocking on Russia's door (or China's) you can be sure that the possibility of victory through conventional means is virtually non-existant.

How much research did you do on Russia exactly to throw around these claims?

[edit on 22-10-2006 by maloy]

[edit on 22-10-2006 by maloy]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Russia doesnt have a problem with energy supplies? Then why did its airforce cut back training because they dont have the money nor fuel?

Here is a link concerning its great submarine program:

www.nti.org...

A link about their great air force:

www.sci.fi...

[edit on 22-10-2006 by princeofpeace]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I do not need to read what somebody far away in the West is saying about the state of Russia or its military. I have exposure to Russian sources (independent I might add), who have a far better summary of what is going on.

As I said- a lot of equipment has been abandoned because there is currently no use for it. Russia as no immediate enemies. It has no ongoing wars. It has no need to interfere anywhere in the world. Yet the KEY equipment is still there, ready for use. And if a need arises, immense amount of equipment would be quickly readied and prepared for battle worthyness. Russia still has the factories, the R&D, the tech know-how to develop adequate means of self defence. The submarines, the planes, the tanks are all there. The crews are there. If Russia foresees into the future and predicts a war in some time period, it can very quickly develop and mobilize the needed force.

Look at Israel. It has a very small full-time army. However in an event of war it can quickly mobilize the needed troops to achieve a decisive victory.

Russian military personel have ongoing training. New equipment is being constructed. You hear some random news about some grounded jets here, some disassembled submarine there. YES- ITS OLD AND OBSOLETE EQUIPMENT. No need to hold on to it. US is doing the same with theirs. However what those articles don't tell you is about the new equipment taking the place of the old.



I see pictures of junk yards in Iraq with blown up american vehicles, and read on the news about the desperate situation in Iraq, and the military bases being cut back and closed throughout the states, and the hard time US has recruiting new soldiers. Am I supposed to believe based on this limited information that the US army is disintegrating and inferior? If I didn't know any better, I would conclude so. And this is exactly what you are doing. Basing a conclusion on a limited source of news from unclear and unofficial sources.

Also I am 100% sure that Russia does not and did not have any problem with fueling its equipment. It seems to be completely false, seeing how Russia is sitting on immense reserves of oil, and now has an immense number of fuel refineries. Nuclear fuel has never been a problem as well- in terms of acquiring it for use. Reliability and getting rid of that fuel were a problem (for the US too however if you look in the right sources). Most of the submarines are currently not being used because they are not needed. If they were, new nuclear components could quickly be installed. Other than that these submarines were created to last for half a century.

[edit on 22-10-2006 by maloy]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
You also must remember that most of Russia's "new" military equipment is being exported and not retained. 2006 is the first year that its new SU aircraft has not been completely exported abroad. Just because Russia produces certain new equipment and technologuies does not mean they are keeping it all for internal use. The overwhelming majority of russian military equipment is being sold while theyretain outdated (relative to the US) hardware.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   


If however you put the nuclear issue aside and look at who would win in a conventional war, then you have a thread worthy of debate. Comprende?


But what do you think the chances are that any war between Russia and the US would not go nuclear?

Honestly, as soon as one side started losing badly enough, it would attempt to end the conflict by raising the stakes by going nuclear, hping that would force a stalemate - which it would, the options both sides would then become a) a cease fire or b) anihilation.

Russia and the US simply cannot fight a conventional war. It won't happen. That's why the Cold War was primarily fought as a series of proxy wars in other people's countries.

The US certainly has an edge now in conventional terms - which means almost nothing in a realistic context. Fought outside Russia's immediate sphere of influence, the US would probably win. Fought within it, or even more unlikely, within Russia itself, we'd begin to take unacceptable losses even if by some miracle every nuke on the planet were rendered inert. Similarly, if Russia attempted to attack the US close to home, or even in Western Europe or Korea/Japan, they'd quickly be handed their behinds.

But it's as silly as asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Faced with a serious enough situation, one side or another would inevitably play the nuclear card.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join