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 warns of pre-emptive strike on AMD if NATO goes ahead

page: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 



USA

Fit for Service: 120,022,084 [2011]




What over one third of the US population is fit for service?

You crack me up!


edit on 4/5/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Hard to argue with facts. Laugh all you want. Facts are facts.

Since US military is more done with a push of button now days, not sure if you would need a lot of fit individuals for service anyways.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 



Hard to argue with facts. Laugh all you want. Facts are facts.


So you have 120m who are of service age, i.e. not children or pensioners? I don't think so. I also doubt the Russian figure by the way but it is more likely to be closer than the US figure.

101m of your 311m appears to be children (Source)

56 million are receiving Old Age security benefits including widows, widowers and disability insurance. (Govt stats)

On top of that there will be people who are retired and do not receive social security. Social Security recipients represent only a portion of the retirement population because not all retired persons qualify for Social Security benefits, for example self-employed workers who never paid into social security and retired persons who never worked.

Out of what is left - which is probably the 120m mark or so not all of those will be fit for duty that is for sure, even if it is only pushing buttons.

By the way in Western societies usually around 1/4, not 1/3 are fit for military duty and that figure is continually declining.


edit on 4/5/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Rationalize how you want, whatever your motive. With that said, when in US history has more than 1-3 million people been active at one given time? Never?

Say there is 60 million fit for service compared to 120 million, you still have a difference of 57 million.

Is this what your argument has come to? Sad sad sad



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Jameela
 

We're doing the right thing by putting a shield there. We need to protect the region from Iran and other regimes that might develop ballistic missile capability. It has nothing to do with a war against Russia. If Russia has ill will towards the world then that can't be helped. If they object to the appropriate action then we have every right as a world community to enforce it anyway.

Russia is being a bully and throwing punches.. They routinely manipulate things at the UN. They've been doing it ever since they became a part of it. They'll get punched if they keep at it.

Russia should let go of its outdated old(er) ways and join the world community.

Have a look at this:
www.americanthinker.com ...

The newspaper cites recent testimony before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee by the director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess. "Iran's progress in building ballistic missiles is noticeable, and with the launch of satellites to space it became clear that Iran has succeeded in building intercontinental ballistic missiles," the general testified, according to the paper. The successful launch of the Rasad satellite to space drew the attention of observers and foreign counterparts, the general reportedly testified.

The Safir missile is capable of transporting a satellite into space and indeed a ballistic missile that can reach beyond the earth's gravity into orbit. The missile has twice been vertically shot over the earth's atmosphere, the editorial says, "but if one day Iran decides that this missile should be shot parallel to the earth's orbit, the missile will actually be transformed into an intercontinental ballistic missile (that) has the capability to destroy targets in other continents."
.............
According to Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, a nuclear weapons expert who has served in the CIA, "Historically, if a nation could put a large payload (hundreds of kilograms) into orbit, that has been treated as a milestone signifying that they have a military ICBM capability. We appear to have changed this rule for Iran's space program. If Western analysts today applied the same standards to Iran that we have applied to the USSR and China in the past, we would conclude that Iran already has an ICBM capability.

Read more: www.americanthinker.com...

So Iran has an ICBM capability and it's probably (covertly) developing nukes. Even if it's not developing nukes we should still put the shield up. This is all very simple.
edit on 4-5-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 



Rationalize how you want, whatever your motive. With that said, when in US history has more than 1-3 million people been active at one given time? Never?


Motive? Why would I have a motive? I could not care less about the US or Russian figures other than the fact that I deal in statistics.


Say there is 60 million fit for service compared to 120 million, you still have a difference of 57 million.

Is this what your argument has come to? Sad sad sad


Eh? Can you explain what you mean by that bit of mumbo jumbo.

Facts are indeed facts and the facts are that those figures are wrong. Not only wrong but are saying that the fit portion of Russians is 1/2.9 (34.5%) and of Americans is 1/2.6 (38.4%) - i.e. that America has more fit persons than Russia per million of population.

Not a cat in hells chance for either of those figures. They are just plain wrong.

One thing I will say is that I very much doubt that if it came to Russian and US troops coming face to face on Russian turf that the Russians would be disadvantaged.


edit on 4/5/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Russia would be no piece of cake and any one saying they would be is frankly nutz.

That being said, in a purely conventional war, depending on the goal, aims, and objectives, CURRENTLY the US likely wins. The russians just don't have the C3I and other technical developments the US does. I am not saying they are garbage or anything, but they just, in most area's aren't in the same league toe to toe. That may not always be the case, and in some areas they have some advantages over us, but right now I say the US wins.

1 example, every US armored unit trains to fight, and win, in not only the defensive but in the offensive, against units at LEAST 3 times there size. And they train to fight armies on the Soviet/Russian model. A good example is the battle of 73 easting in Gulf war 1. An armored cav squadron took on the better part of an Iraqi Republican Guard Armored DIVISION, and destroyed it entirely, in about 4 hours, with I beleive 2 KIA and 12 WIA to the Americans.

Now. the Iraqi's arent' the Russians, but they used the same equipment, on roughly the same doctrine and tactics, trained in part by the Russians, and they got whomped. Same thing in 03'. Now, that IS comparing apples and oranges. There are several intangibles that would change things to a degree. But if you do a pretty in depth study of both services, you will see that in conventional toe to toe combat, it's not going to be pretty, but US forces would come out in top in most engagements. The Russians left several advisor's in Iraq during both wars, to observe what we could do, and most reports are they they were pretty shocked. I know a US Armored Officer, and he got to meet one of his Russian counterparts. And the Russian strait up admitted that he would NOT want to fight American armored forces in any way shape or form.....when my friend asked who he thought would win, the Russian simply said, "I hope we NEVER find out".

Now, if we march to moscow, in winter.....well.....we probably lose, ask Napoleon, Or Adolf.......

edit on 4-5-2012 by SrWingCommander because: clarification



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


I see that your buying into the nonsense of the Iranian threat no?



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Jameela
 

Well, fair point to a degree on that about technological levels. However, I wonder if we might not be thinking about different things. Russia and China both have something that the West hasn't had for at least 15 years now. They've had a virtual 'God-Mode' style sandbox for their hackers to learn in without fear of serious consequence. The Pentagon, for instance, is hit daily from China based systems. Many call the PLA for being behind it, but I've always thought that was over thinking things. China's Military would more likely just call one of their people working inside the Pentagon to begin with and ask whatever they want.


I think a great deal of what we see is what started as "Gold Farmers" in the MMORPG games. Also, largely from China. There, they were crews of Chinese being paid peanuts to accumulate items and "currency" of value in games like Final Fantasy XI and Everquest so they could be packaged and sold on websites for actual cash. A rather staggering business these days for volume. Who said cheaters never prosper?

Now the Gold Farmers graduate to hackers and China/Russia both seem just fine with that as long as 100% of their efforts are directed outside the nation and nothing back at them..... That is the threat I figure the U.S. is likely to see. Satellites, GPS, Weapons systems..whatever is hackable. We'll find very fast in a war with the BIG nations, just how secure we are.


It does appear you are more up to date on the world of hacking than I! The things you have just mentioned I did not even know, to be perfectly honest, but yes, in this instance I definitely see your scenario as being one of plausibility. And it would certainly be more cost effective. Thank you for the info!
edit on 4-5-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by BIHOTZ
reply to post by Jameela
 


This is interesting to me. Russia needs a large war and/or opponent to re-establish its old power base. Similarly all the opposition Iran receives only strengthens the hold over the people by the regime in charge. Russia would need a totalitarian rule to govern all the former soviet blocks. They need the US and NATO as enemies. That is the only way to secure their former empire. I am sure that if there was a war with Russia both would cut a deal in which both agree to work together behind the curtain.

That's the why folks. They don't mind if most of us die off. They only need a few thousand to start off with anyways. Russia would be used as a game changer should the designed revolt get out of hand.


While you may have one or two points, especially concerning US, I do not see Russia in the same light as I do US. Russia does not need a war. They have also proven themselves to be more sane than America in the 21st century, appearing to be contented staying on her part of the globe so long as she has allies and a healthy enough national economy.

None of those statements applies to the US. What is a benefit as well as an apparent desire right now for the US cannot and should not be projected upon others who are not showing the same actions. The US is the one needing you to think Russia is a threat, not vice versa. Russia has no need of making up stories.

If anyone is prescribing to the teachings of Nietzsche it is the US government. Not Russia. All Russia really needs is to keep the status quo long enough and America will collapse of her own accord and Russia will not have needed to expend any energy at all, US is creating her own demise both economically and politically. This appears to be part of keeping the status quo.
edit on 4-5-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
For the record I don't want to fight Russia.It is a strategic mistake to provoke them exactly as they did to us to get Jupiter missiles out of Turkey in the Cuban missile crisis.Perhaps the communist mentality in the White House is trying to get leverage in the same fashion. Aside from a suspicious plane crash has there been any intell about Russia wanting old real estate back?.....Anyone?



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 

I appreciate the opportunity. It'll never happen if the argument here is to compare Russian military costs with American military costs and somehow draw meaningful conclusions from that. I know of 3 factors that go toward those numbers before ever getting to something which may indicate a difference of actial strength in the two nation's forces.

1. Cost over-runs aren't smiled at and laughed about in the Sovi..Err..Russian military.
I'm guessing things haven't changed THAT much and some vendor sayins Widget A will cost 10,000 rubles may not get home alive that night if he hands the boss man a 100,000 Ruble bill and demands 10x over-run pay. Of course here, they damn near get a bonus for it. Sad huh?

2. The Russians have spent as much or more money stealing OUR tech than they have at making their own. It's a whole lot cheaper when we have to make 10 versions to find one that works...then Russia just steals the plan to #10 and mass produces their own copy. Err.. Yeah.. That makes budgetary numbers so screwed, it looks like the U.S. is King Kong to the Russian mouse. Well.. Putin don't squeak.


3. The Russians and Soviet before them have a RADICALLY different approach to war and military supply and they always have. The U.S. will brun a billion bucks a plane for the best plane mankind has ever seen. Of course, we'll only get ONE very fancy plane for our billion, but we're as happy as new parents on birthday. Russia damn near lost a World War and watched a good % of their population ravaged by the Germans. They learned and almost all died for the lesson of quantity vs. quality. We can have a plane so advanced, the damn thing fights the war without help.....but we have NOTHING if one lucky shot hits our ONE plane. Russia will throw low tech Mig's at us until we run out of big fancy planes to lose..... 100:1? Who cares.... Russia has NEVER fought wars with short term gain in mind but who is alive when it's over.

So... Nope.. no retraction. The Russians aren't weaker, dumber or just simple minded. They just don't throw money around like it's a monopoly game on beer night. I wouldn't mistake SMART defense spending for a lack of it...and Russia can hold it's own in a fight. We'll be doomed if we forget that, IMO.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


Russia cannot even control its own territories so there is no interest in ruling or managing the Central Europe like USSR did. Only thing Russia wanted was a buffer between itself and Western powers like Germany and other NATO countries. But the NATO expanded anyways and wants to expand further. That is what is making Russia uneasy. The Grand Encirclement of Russia is under way. NATO reneged on its words and will pay the price. Seems WWII finished only partial job 1/3rd of destroying the NAZIs. Cold War did another 1/3rd of destroying the communism. Another 1/3rd job is left and hope it is finished with much less disturbance and destruction.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


I dont know where you got your numbers, I just want to tell you this...

Russia
Forces in Europe > Aircraft 2,358 (9 times more than USA)
Forces in Europe > Tanks 4,982
Military Capabilities > Active Troops 1,037,000
18-27 years of age for compulsory or voluntary military service; males are registered for the draft at 17 years of age; service obligation - 1 year; reserve obligation to age 50; as of July 2008, a draft military strategy called for the draft to continue up to the year 2030

USA
Forces in Europe > Aircraft 235
Forces in Europe > Tanks 684
Military Capabilities > Active Troops 1,415,289
18 years of age (17 years of age with parental consent) for male and female voluntary service; maximum enlistment age 42 (Army), 27 (Air Force), 34 (Navy), 28 (Marines); service obligation 8 years, including 2-5 years active duty (Army), 2 years active (Navy), 4 years active (Air Force, Marines)

All in all - their footprint is bigger in Europe, sort of endless troops supply, comparable troop size to USA even though small country/coverage.

Advice: Europe is their lawn/tanks and aircraft parking lot, dont pick fight there.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by NullVoid
 



See, your thinking is much like Russia. 1970s or cold war type of thinking. No one cares about troop numbers. It’s about information and technology. Who cares about numbers? When wars are won and lost by the push of a button. Let me enlighten you. Russia is light years behind.

www.prosebeforehos.com...


Please look at that pie graph. Russia is cute with their 5%, but in summary, don’t even come close to what the USA contributes to its military.


If you want a more up to date one, I can provide it. The numbers are even more staggering. I just thought the pie graph would be easy for you to read.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by kellynap43
 


Today's military of Russia is no match for the US, may be 1/10th or 1/4th at very best. Other than nuke missiles, Russia has not parity match vrs US.

Russian mindset, culture and thus leadership thinking is outdated and hence when ever they are attacked, their populations suffer alot. Tsarist minds make their people suffer even in the peace times and during the war due to ill preparations whole leverage of the society is thrown to the military and then population suffers even more.

In today's Russia vast majority of wealth is concentrated in .1% of people like Oligarchs, Tsars, Kleptocrats. General population is barely able to make ends meet.

'East is East and West is West; And Twain shall they meet'........Rudyard Kipling.



edit on 8-5-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NullVoid
reply to post by kellynap43
 


I dont know where you got your numbers, I just want to tell you this...

Russia
Forces in Europe > Aircraft 2,358 (9 times more than USA)
Forces in Europe > Tanks 4,982
Military Capabilities > Active Troops 1,037,000
18-27 years of age for compulsory or voluntary military service; males are registered for the draft at 17 years of age; service obligation - 1 year; reserve obligation to age 50; as of July 2008, a draft military strategy called for the draft to continue up to the year 2030

USA
Forces in Europe > Aircraft 235
Forces in Europe > Tanks 684
Military Capabilities > Active Troops 1,415,289
18 years of age (17 years of age with parental consent) for male and female voluntary service; maximum enlistment age 42 (Army), 27 (Air Force), 34 (Navy), 28 (Marines); service obligation 8 years, including 2-5 years active duty (Army), 2 years active (Navy), 4 years active (Air Force, Marines)

All in all - their footprint is bigger in Europe, sort of endless troops supply, comparable troop size to USA even though small country/coverage.

Advice: Europe is their lawn/tanks and aircraft parking lot, dont pick fight there.


When you say, "In Europe", I assume your talking about European Russia....not parked next door to Germany (or in fact IN eastern Germany like in the Cold War). Almost all of the European Russian forces would take a fairly substantial (and obvious to intel satellites) logistical effort to move and supply for any attack/invasion of Europe, or to strike at US Forces in Europe or any extended conventional combat operations. To do so would likely cause a NATO response/alert/deployment, so you have to factor in NATO forces to the US mix as well (assuming this hypothetical US/Russian war is even fought in Europe. The EU may or may not agree with what's going on, so how they factor in this is an unknown. Rest assured, they don't want the Russians in their countries any more then we would).

While the US foot print in Europe is now pretty small, I would assume that there are still plans to emplement REFORGER if needed (REturn of FORces to GERmany). Those would be implemented with European Consent if the big Red wave starts looking like it is going to roll west from European Russia.

Finally, ALOT of the Russian forces are cadre forces, especially the army units. Meaning that they are at less than 50% (and in many cases less the15%) manning. In time of mobilization troops (usually reservists) are called up to fill out those units. They would likely need some sort of retraining, before being able to deploy. Especially considering their conscription time is only 1 year. Active US forces typically enlist in services for 4-6 years and therfore are much more proficient in their skills. Also, in the last 10 years, US troops have racked up real combat experience (most with mulitple tours) something that Russian army doesn't have much of. Chechyna was awhile back and Georgia was short and quick. Those intangables are HUGE. Comparing straight US to Russian numbers isn't going to work.

I still stand by the fact that a US/Russian war is going to be no piece of cake. The financial factor could cause the US the biggest issue. But for the next couple of years at least, and on the battlefield, the US has the edge.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Big Red Wave is not happening in Russia, that is a guarantee. Only Russians know how much they suffered under communism and its evilness. Furthermore, Russia is NOT interested in conquering any country big or small. Makes no sense in today's information age. Even with the CIS, Russia will only make alliance and bloc type arrangements. No need to carry the load of others like Soviet Union did.

Russia is in no position to fight any major country right now. That includes countries like Germany, Turkey etc. US is far too powerful. Training is horrible in Russian conscript armies and practice of skills is minimal.

On the otherhand, Russia has lots of 'somewhat' trained reserves and at the time of need there will be more than a few who can qualify as troops carrying out various duties.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
The Link below means that Russia is not bluffing. They cannot afford to bluff it seems.

www.en.ria.ru...

Strategic Missile Forces chief Lt. Gen. Sergei Karakayev said in December that Russia’s current solid-propellant ICBMs might be unable to penetrate U.S. missile defenses that the country is deploying in Europe to protect against possible attacks from ‘rogue states’ such as Iran and North Korea.
edit on 8-5-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   
I do agree Russia overall is bit lagging compared to US. But Europe is pretty much their doorstep. They dont yell for no apparent reason. Their concern is based on true fact - you upgrade the shield, I'll upgrade my weapon.

They are currently improving the army state until 2030. Probably cockroaches ate most of the ignition wires already
Nevertheless, a bear without claw is still a dangerous bear.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join