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: Wookiep
a reply to: Xcathdra
If Putin can manage to carry Russia without western sanctions affecting it, then I can see Eastern Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia as a possibility as well. With that said, I honestly don't think Putin cares about sanctions.
This is a tough situation, especially with the threats/rhetoric of nukes. NATO most likely wouldn't intervene in Moldova/Georgia militarily just due to that threat alone.
I hope you're wrong about the Baltics as well, because that WOULD mean nukes flying. I don't see NATO sitting back in that case, otherwise NATO would completely dissolve.
originally posted by: johnwick
originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: Xcathdra
If Putin can manage to carry Russia without western sanctions affecting it, then I can see Eastern Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia as a possibility as well. With that said, I honestly don't think Putin cares about sanctions.
This is a tough situation, especially with the threats/rhetoric of nukes. NATO most likely wouldn't intervene in Moldova/Georgia militarily just due to that threat alone.
I hope you're wrong about the Baltics as well, because that WOULD mean nukes flying. I don't see NATO sitting back in that case, otherwise NATO would completely dissolve.
The west learned this pattern very well in WW2, they will have to react.
originally posted by: Snarl
originally posted by: johnwick
originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: Xcathdra
If Putin can manage to carry Russia without western sanctions affecting it, then I can see Eastern Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia as a possibility as well. With that said, I honestly don't think Putin cares about sanctions.
This is a tough situation, especially with the threats/rhetoric of nukes. NATO most likely wouldn't intervene in Moldova/Georgia militarily just due to that threat alone.
I hope you're wrong about the Baltics as well, because that WOULD mean nukes flying. I don't see NATO sitting back in that case, otherwise NATO would completely dissolve.
The west learned this pattern very well in WW2, they will have to react.
Ummm ... Back in the Cold War, Putin's strategy would have been referred to as Low Intensity Conflict. Him being a Cold War vet himself, he's probably altogether familiar with the strategy (as he's artfully demonstrating). Too bad we never got to the point of practicing a response. Maybe somebody's dusting off the old manuals somewhere.
originally posted by: rickymouse
I'm sure that if you talked to the head of our nuclear program they would say the same thing, immediate response is important to these kind of things. If Russia launched nukes at the US, ours would be in the air before the first one ever hit the USA. Would you have it any other way?
originally posted by: rickymouse
I'm sure that if you talked to the head of our nuclear program they would say the same thing, immediate response is important to these kind of things. If Russia launched nukes at the US, ours would be in the air before the first one ever hit the USA. Would you have it any other way?
originally posted by: Wookiep
originally posted by: rickymouse
I'm sure that if you talked to the head of our nuclear program they would say the same thing, immediate response is important to these kind of things. If Russia launched nukes at the US, ours would be in the air before the first one ever hit the USA. Would you have it any other way?
Well, sure.. I think the point is that Russia makes it a point to announce such things publicly as to flex it's nuclear muscle as a threat. Yes, we're back to the cold war, and this is just another sign of it.
originally posted by: Snarl
originally posted by: rickymouse
I'm sure that if you talked to the head of our nuclear program they would say the same thing, immediate response is important to these kind of things. If Russia launched nukes at the US, ours would be in the air before the first one ever hit the USA. Would you have it any other way?
Do you really think there are no nukes in orbit? I'm not suggesting anything, but an EMP would suck ... Big Time.
originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: johnwick
I agree, but nukes are still the biggest cards in play. (that we know of, at least) They are still capable of using them, unlike NK, who doesn't have the capability to hit even Japan with a nuke yet.
originally posted by: johnwick
originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: johnwick
Just the US with nothing but F-15 and F-16s would destroy his airforce.
Completely disagree. Include the F-22s then you statement gains lots of weight.
The new T-90 is supposed to be good, but that is yet to be seen, and they are in very short supply.
T-90 is good but not as good as M1 Abrams. However, for price of 1 Abrams, 2 T-90s can be bought. 2 T-90s will sure win against single Abram or in a similar 2 for 1 ratio.
Putin is going to do the old "land grab in country B and if the west gets involved then nukes are a possibility" game.
Putin is not interested in Land grab. But he does not want Russia's "near abroad" in NATO or hostile alliance. I will end the comment here as answers from the other side are well known and waste of time to discuss any further.
You are right on the price of Abrams vs T-90, but, the US can make 6 Abrams for evey T-90 russia can, even at that price.
Russia's economy is all but nonexistent compared to America's.
So yes they are cheaper, but we have mountains of cash compared to Russia's mole hills.
originally posted by: johnwick
Either he is happy with the largest most resource rich country on earth already or let's get it on.
originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: johnwick
The U.S. no longer produces rocket engines (at least that I'm aware of).
I don't think anyone's up there ensuring compliance. Can you imagine the cost?
He who sets off the first EMP is probably gonna come out ahead. (Might be why Putin made a public statement regarding Russia's Dead Hand toy.)
Too many things to consider for an old guy.
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: johnwick
originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: johnwick
Just the US with nothing but F-15 and F-16s would destroy his airforce.
Completely disagree. Include the F-22s then you statement gains lots of weight.
The new T-90 is supposed to be good, but that is yet to be seen, and they are in very short supply.
T-90 is good but not as good as M1 Abrams. However, for price of 1 Abrams, 2 T-90s can be bought. 2 T-90s will sure win against single Abram or in a similar 2 for 1 ratio.
Putin is going to do the old "land grab in country B and if the west gets involved then nukes are a possibility" game.
Putin is not interested in Land grab. But he does not want Russia's "near abroad" in NATO or hostile alliance. I will end the comment here as answers from the other side are well known and waste of time to discuss any further.
You are right on the price of Abrams vs T-90, but, the US can make 6 Abrams for evey T-90 russia can, even at that price.
Russia's economy is all but nonexistent compared to America's.
So yes they are cheaper, but we have mountains of cash compared to Russia's mole hills.
Also T90 has a major flaw hit right behind the crew quarters and the whole tank goes up. Its the auto reloader hit that and there munitions go off. They improved the safety of the crew by adding blast doors however not sure what a tank does without ammo. And that's one reason why I'm sure every weapons manufacturer on the planet wants a shot at the T90s in Ukraine. They want to know if the blast doors did anything but save the crew. Even that is debatable I think the Russian claims here are just wrong. Also realize the abrams has the best armor in the world known to take direct hit's and keep rolling probably the rumor of depleted Uranium under its armor. So even a hit by a T90 doesn't gurantee destruction.
add tusk to an abrams and it's survivability factor goes way up. Meaning they would rack up major kills against T90. Bottom line Russia conventional military is no match which is why all these threats of nuclear keep coming out if Russia. Russians aren't stupid and know fighting NATO they will lose so to them they see nuclear as the ultimate trump card.