Russian War games include 160,000 troops, 5,000 tanks and dozens of ships.

page: 2
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
I wonder if countries ever practice peaceful diplomacy games, yano, just incase talks break out.


You mean like a backroom confidential meetings where they discuss subjects or topics that "we" probably don't even know exist in the first place? And then laugh about it?

Possible.

But if that were true than "the mainstream media" would get caught lying from time to time, and international news stories would be heavily skewed by deception geared towards overt manipulation. But when has that happened?


Hahaha i see your point, Just hate the talk of nations bigging themselves up. If world war broke out again, how many millions would be killed this time?




posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
I wonder if countries ever practice peaceful diplomacy games, yano, just incase talks break out.


You mean like a backroom confidential meetings where they discuss subjects or topics that "we" probably don't even know exist in the first place? And then laugh about it?

Possible.

But if that were true than "the mainstream media" would get caught lying from time to time, and international news stories would be heavily skewed by deception geared towards overt manipulation. But when has that happened?


Hahaha i see your point, Just hate the talk of nations bigging themselves up. If world war broke out again, how many millions would be killed this time?


It all depends on the "scale" of the conflict.

I ascertain that the most likely scenario would involve a localized "event", with limited forces participating in the actual zone of combat /theater. This would be a mere skirmish.

For a large scale combined arms prolonged conflict with massed movements (similar to what is being simulated in the current war games), the end game would almost certainly be some sort of WMD use. However this seems highly unlikely although not impossible. They still have contingencies for everything after all.

Any death count is possible from just a few people to nearly everyone on Earth. That's a huge realm of unknown potentials.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Perhaps you dont quite understand how much work and effort goes into moving that massive amount of people and equipment.

There is probably half that number involved in just getting to where they need to go, before they all start running around fields punching trees.

Practicing on that scale is about the logistics and smoothing out drills so one company doesnt hold up the fleet etc



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 06:33 AM
link   
I don't think we should underestimate the Russians (ask Napoleon and Hitler). Overestimating their capabilities will not hurt us, except financially.

I may get flamed, but in a way it may be good to have more than one superpower. You have checks and balances, like the Congress and Senate. Does anyone doubt Syria wouldn't already have been "liberated" if the Russians and Chinese hadn't made so much noise?

From Strangelove: Mr. President, we must not allow... a mine shaft gap!



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
160,000 troops, 5,000 tanks and dozens of ships

Yeah very scary indeed

Whats even more scary is the combined strength of the US/NATO



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The Russian War Games come after an supposed Israeli air strike in Syria at least this shows number of reasons why we shouldn't intervene.

Why in this case Assad wont step down yet until the 2014 Syrian elections. Yet War mongers like Sen Levin whose retiring and McCain both whom love nothing but wars.

edit on 17-7-2013 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)


The excercise clearly is not intended for Syria or the US it is a message to China that Russia can still defend itself. The Russian military is in a terrible state and its no secret. When you have a growing power on your border who love to have the natural resources you have and at the same time your power is fading sometimes you need to send a message. I have said it all along Russia will either end up in NATO or in some other Western defense agreement as it continues to lose ground to China.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


China and Russia already have a defence agreement.(see article 9 of the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
While the masses blabber incessantly about things that mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like the Martin/Zimmerman meaningless discussion about race and guilt and whatever, which solves nothing and only distracts people, there are actually things going on elsewhere on the planet, yes.

WW1 started for unclear reasons according to my research findings, but one thing for sure is that the monetary system changed right about then.

WW2 started because American's really needed to be distracted from the misery they were experiencing during the depression, yeah, and WW2 fixed it right up.

All the other wars up till now happened because the majority of American's are pretty much stupid, your stupid flag is just a piece of cloth, your God wouldn't approve of you using it as an excuse to act like you do, you will not be forgiven.

WW3 will probably amount to escaping from economic misery too, just look around, read, learn, the world is about to burst into flames.

History repeats itself because memories die with the individual, and for some reason people just don't progress much over time, they just don't learn anything new and use it for anything but fussing and fighting and taking advantage of one another.

And if a war started, nearly anyone who could work, who would work, would have work.

Problem solved, manufacturing picks up, ignorant young go to die in a war and make room for others to be employed, debts are generated by war material manufacturing, food production, everything would be as it was for about a half century, and then we forget again and do it again.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


WOW, now those are some amazing numbers, from both sides. China vastly outnumbers the Russians in manpower whch would extremely important if Wars are to be fought without Nukes, otherwise its just a bunch of dead people.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Good. I hope they get stronger. The US needs a check and balance like never before.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
didn't think it was necessary to start a new thread so i'll just add this link to your thread.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner
 


World War 1 did not start for no reason. The spark that started the World War was the assassination of Austria's Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie. The assassination occurred on June 28, 1914 while Ferdinand was visiting the city of Sarajevo in the Austro-Hungarian province of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Although Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the nephew of Austria's emperor and heir-apparent to the throne, was not very well liked by most, his assassination by a Serb nationalist was viewed as a great excuse to attack Austria-Hungary's troublesome neighbor, Serbia.
However, instead of reacting quickly to the incident, Austria-Hungary made sure they had the backing of Germany, with whom they had a treaty, before they proceeded. This gave Serbia time to get the backing of Russia, with whom they had a treaty.

The calls for back-up didn't end there. Russia also had a treaty with France and Britain.
This meant that by the time Austria-Hungary officially declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914, an entire month after the assassination, much of Europe had already become entangled in the dispute.The Allies needed help and they were hoping that the United States, with its vast resources of men and materials, would join on their side. However, for years, the U.S. had clung to their idea of isolationism. Plus, the U.S. just didn't want to be involved in a war that seemed so far away and that didn't seem to affect them in any great way.
However, there were two major events that changed American public opinion about the war. The first occurred in 1915, when a German U-boat (submarine) sunk the British ocean liner RMS Lusitania. Considered by Americans to be a neutral ship that carried mostly passengers, Americans were furious when the Germans sank it, especially since 159 of the passengers were Americans.

The second was the Zimmermann Telegram. In early 1917, Germany sent Mexico a coded message promising portions of U.S. land in return for Mexico joining World War I against the United States. The message was intercepted by Britain, translated, and shown to the United States. This brought the war to U.S. soil, giving the U.S. a real reason to enter the war on the side of the Allies.

history1900s.about.com...[/url]

'WW2 started because American's really needed to be distracted from the misery they were experiencing during the depression'?..... No, the War officially began on September 1, 1939, when Germany attacked Poland. Germany then crushed six countries in three months — Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, — and proceeded to conquer Yugoslavia and Greece The Netherlands, and France. The UK and its commonwealth were pretty much fighting the Nazis on there own at this point (The Battle of Britain was a major turning point) . America did not enter the war (but did keep us Brits supplied with a much needed resources) until Japan`s plans for expansion in the Far East led it to attack Pearl Harbour in December 1941.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Agree this looks like a gentle message to China and no more.

Countries talk to each other much more since the war game Able Archer very nearly caused world war 3 in the 1980s. Living through that time, we really did not know how close we came to nuclear war.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I thought this was in response to Israel being responsible for attacking a shipment of Russian weapons purchased by Syria earlier this month.

worldtruth.tv...

The same figures you posted are mentioned in this article, and is possibly speculating that Putin called the military to be ready to retaliate against Israel for such a maneuver.

If this is true, I'm afraid the U.S. will undoubtedly back Israel and drag us further into the fray.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
I don't doubt Russian forces are exercising. But those figures for troop movements, tank numbers etc are just hopelessly ambitious. I think the Russians would be fortunate to get 10 warships to sea at once in the Pacific and as for 5,000+ tanks ? Dubious stats I think.


Not really - The Russian Army (and other organisations like the Border units, Internal Ministry units etc) have millions of active and reserve personnel, plus many tens of thousands of Armoured vehicles, albeit most are cold War era relics. Likewise, the Russian Pacific Fleet does have numerous ships, although mostly Submarines and amphibious vessels rather than actual Combat warships.

It isn't "hopelessly ambitious" in the slightest.



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


good link wabbit i did not know russia was that low in population 142 million china has them almost 10 to 1 in all areas except air craft,i also NEVER thought i would see Russian artillery dwarfed by another nation so that was surprising as well.

looking at Russian strengths it seems they far out pace china in logistical forces not to mention the often forgotten Russian ally that is winter,and in most cases a Chinese land invasion would have to go through Siberia.......not something i would want to try as a general in any army.although the numbers are much in the favor of china as far as naval actions go i would assume that Russian naval forces will have the edge in tech and experience,not to mention the Russians basically built the Chinese carrier so its weakness should be know to them.

Russia has one thing alot of nations dont have decent oil reserves located within their own borders which seem to be something china has always lacked so thanks for the interesting read wrabbit!

i dont think its likely to indicate a big shift in Russian strategy for them to target china with these games but it does go to show that like the us Russia likes to be prepared for any situation and probably has a variety of contingency plans for any kind of future conflict


Russia has too many DEW (Directed Energy Weapons) for China to try something, and if they did the end result will be just like they're 2 other wars, "RUSSIAN-VICTORYYYYY"



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ionwind
I don't think we should underestimate the Russians (ask Napoleon and Hitler). Overestimating their capabilities will not hurt us, except financially.

I may get flamed, but in a way it may be good to have more than one superpower. You have checks and balances, like the Congress and Senate. Does anyone doubt Syria wouldn't already have been "liberated" if the Russians and Chinese hadn't made so much noise?

From Strangelove: Mr. President, we must not allow... a mine shaft gap!

Don't worry about getting flamed, those doubting will witness WW3 in thier life-time
(in the next 4 years)



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
I don't doubt Russian forces are exercising. But those figures for troop movements, tank numbers etc are just hopelessly ambitious. I think the Russians would be fortunate to get 10 warships to sea at once in the Pacific and as for 5,000+ tanks ? Dubious stats I think.


Not really - The Russian Army (and other organisations like the Border units, Internal Ministry units etc) have millions of active and reserve personnel, plus many tens of thousands of Armoured vehicles, albeit most are cold War era relics. Likewise, the Russian Pacific Fleet does have numerous ships, although mostly Submarines and amphibious vessels rather than actual Combat warships.

It isn't "hopelessly ambitious" in the slightest.

You do know that the U.S. only has 5000+ M1A1/2 the other 3500 have been out of commission for YEARS
F-15 only around 230-240 187 FA/22 will be no match for S-400/366/7 MiG-31



posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATSWATCHER
You do know that the U.S. only has 5000+ M1A1/2 the other 3500 have been out of commission for YEARS
F-15 only around 230-240 187 FA/22 will be no match for S-400/366/7 MiG-31


So? What's your point? That's like saying because Jon only has 3 apples, it can't possibly be true that Vlad has 10,000. Stupid logic.

Look it up, Russia has tens of thousands of Armoured vehicles, ranging from MBT's, to IFV's and APC's.

MBT's alone, Russia has around 3,000 active T-72's, T-80's and T-90's, with around 11,000 T-72's and 80's in storage. When you factor in the IFV's and APC's, the numbers get crazy.

It was always a fear during the Cold War - the Soviets simply outnumbered all of NATO combined when it came to armoured vehicles, NATO relied on quality and if that failed, it would have probably been NATO who would deploy Nukes first simply to stop the tsunami of Soviet armour pouring over the German border.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
It's not just the Russian's, The U.S. is landing 20'000 Troops in Australia for offensive Amphibious training.

Looks like the chess board is shaping up. You see Australia is only a small jump to the Philippines.

Currently china is in border disputes with at least 5 or 6 of it's neighbor's , some would call that bullying on the part of China.

www.presstv.ir...
edit on 19-7-2013 by Skorpy because: (no reason given)



top topics
 
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join