Obama: US military ‘significantly superior’ to Russia’s

originally posted by: TDawg61
Welcome to the latest commie shill thread.Join date(like many)less than 2 weeks after Russian Crimean invasion.You fascists are soooo stealthy

Who cares what you think anyway?

originally posted by: criticalhit
a reply to: alldaylong

Terrible Ally, France is more willing to fight these days than England, efforts in any fights have been token gestures since WW2 and steadily decreasing "showing up" is not commitment. You sent 45,000 troops to the gulf war, half of what Saudia Arabia committed, balked on Syria, and... to be fair, no one else sent crud... but as Nato and US allies goes that makes you the cherry on top of a poop Sunday, France ran out 14,000 and it was down hill from there... and Europe is nearly a Billion strong...

Fear in your hearts, Yes... Most of Europe is really freaking comfortable these days, you have it better than we do in the States, you have lived under our Nuclear Umbrella for decades, Posters love to spout MAD because you believe "it will never happen again" on your continent because of it, a couple of centuries of British expedition-ism and 2 world wars have left a philosophy that the effort to be a global force is fruitless and that Americas efforts are daft. Perhaps "fear" is a strong word? But by Philosophy the commitment is only to remain with a MAD enabling ally you believe will prevent Russia from moving West, beyond that the alliance is basically one sided.

and WW2... your cities were pounded almost daily, Normandy couldn't have happened without us, the British "stiff upper lip" couldn't have maintained itself forever and yes, your male population was bled dry since then of it's true heart and hasn't fully recovered to this day.

Just be honest, the average brit wants no part of a fight for any reason against anyone, you can argue the individual points but we know what general public opinion is, the Americans are foolish, we've been down this road, the alliance of Nato is a hedge and nothing more....

I'm not poking fun, frankly.... mostly these are good traits, If I didn't have a giant ocean between me and the actual field of battle i would be more pragmatic too... but the bottom line the will for a real fight is simply not there at all anywhere in Western Europe... Washington IS full of war Hawks, don't actually disagree with that in anyway. But the reality is... it's a sick sad world you live in, Europe will be come for again, via many different angles not just militarily, American aggression is there for a reason, for 20 years "The Russians will never".... LOL YES THEY WILL they are doing it right now... By economy and manpower YOU and the rest of Europe should be bearing and sharing the same level of technical and man power and economic expenditure we do

1 Billion (almost) vs 300 Million by GDP and Labor, your commitment should exceed the US by a factor of 3... it doesn't even come close and the Bear is on your doorstep not ours... In fairness, your the best we have, but that's still a joke.

Your a disgrace to your country.

originally posted by: mikeone718
The Russians sure have a lot of fans in this thread.

So not underestimateing your enemy makes you a Russian shill?

No wonder you guys lost vietnam if underestimating foes is considered patriotic

originally posted by: Xeven
a reply to: crazyewok That's the thing we don't need to invade and occupy anyone to defeat them. Only need to destroy their infrastructure to remove them from world scene. The US has the stand off capability to turn Russia backward 100 years. No need to invade and occupy anything. Russia could not long defend against US air power methodically taking down the power grid, aircraft, communications, ships, railways.
If Russia did not have Nukes the USAF alone could turn it to dark ages. No tanks required other than Nao defending itself. Sure US would get hurt a bit but not much in a Conventional war. Well armed troops and tanks are just targets for air power once air dominance is gained.

I love this.

You do know Hitler tried that?

Infact the Russian obliged him by destroying there own infrastructure and country to leave nothing worth caotureing.

You can bomb Russia into the stone ages and histroy shows your just playing into there hands.

I think we got better toys than Russia, but no matter what ALL of our toys are gonna be broken when we are done playing. Even without nukes I'm sure Russia is capable of taking out quite a few ships. How long does it take to replace one of those? I'm sure they'll take out a few planes as well. I'm also more than certain that they could take out a few strategic locations with submarines. We've got a lot of nice toys but in the end, we are both just gonna nuke each other.......which means all arguments about who would win are moot points. Everyone loses. Even if we launched a suprise nuclear attack on Russia and completely devastated parts of their country....have you seen how big Russia is? You are gonna have to do a lot of bombing to feel confident that you took out ALL of there response capabilities. Then you also have the submarines and possibly orbital weapons. Lets not forget we catch rides to space from the Russians so theres no telling what they have in orbit. I believe that being the superpower that we are ties our hands in the modern era. The superpower cant justify launching a preemptive nuclear attack, especially when we were the last ones to use such a weapon. So that leaves us open to a preemptive attack because of our "signifigantly superior" conventional forces. We are expected to use the conventional forces first.........kinda like how we expect the police to use the taser and not the pistol if at all possible.

originally posted by: crazyewok

So not underestimateing your enemy makes you a Russian shill?

No wonder you guys lost vietnam if underestimating foes is considered patriotic

Vietnam again? Blah blah blah blah.

Leave that poor horse alone.

a reply to: TiedDestructor

Only a fool refuses to look at and learn from past mistakes.

American arrogance will make the USA existance as a super power a very short existance if your not carefull.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: TiedDestructor

Only a fool refuses to look at and learn from past mistakes.

American arrogance will make the USA existance as a super power a very short existance if your not carefull.

We will gladly keep that in mind. And thank you for your concern.

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

When you want a war won put the military in charge and stand back. When you want lose a war put the politicians in charge. There is no need to go to or even consider war in this case. We will just let them take what they want. It's not on our continent and until the they threaten us we will ignore them. By then our military will be hollowed out and too weak to respond. With Obummer in charge our enemies have no fear. He can be quite well handled and kept out of the picture.

originally posted by: Hijinx
a reply to: 4TheHighCyde20

Cold war tech and tactics gave the "mighty" modern us army a pretty hard time in the middle east.

Heck, Russian hardness(They are hard mothereffers) plus 80's tech sounds like pretty good odds to smash the piss out of the US.

Keep dreaming...

originally posted by: RustyNailer
I think Obama is a clown and one of the worst things to come across our nation. But he is right, we would roll Russia easily, toe to toe. Our Military is battle test and hardened, no one want's to tangle with us at the moment. But that may not be the case in a decade or so, if we keep gutting our military while others increase.

But what you're saying is the same rhetoric as Obama.

I just don't understand why people totally underestimate the Russian military.

The first thing about the Russians is that their military is battle hardened and equipped to handle regional wars. The Russian forces have waged war in Afghanistan, Chechnya/Dagestan, Georgia over the last 30 years.

When Russia pushed into Georgia, they sent veteran units from the Caucasus equipped with very used hardware. Within a week, Russia had almost made it to Tbilisi before Georgia begged for peace. Within that week, the Russians had smashed around a NATO-trained military, leaving behind corpses, flaming warships and crispy tanks and airplanes and drones.

The Russians didn't even get a chance to use their best toys. The Russians have:
- top-tier theatre SAMs
- satellites
- anti-warship cruise missiles
- 4.5 gen combat aircraft
- naval fleets
- tens of thousands of elite infantry
- heavy and medium MBTs
- intercontinental bombers
- short-range ballistic missiles
- scrambler and hacking capability
- modern heavy rocket/shell artillery
- all kinds of airlifters
- airborne mechanized infantry
- thousands of commandos

And that's just to name a few things that Russia has deployed en masse in its arsenal right now.

And Russia has full capability to produce and refine its own fuel to maintain this force.

That is not to say that Russia does not have a lot of tactical downfalls, but strategically speaking attacking Russia within Eurasia would be a failing campaign from the onset.

And they other key thing to note is that almost all of Russia's military is based in or near Russia. The USA has 700+ military bases around the world. How can anyone compare conventional troop strength when the USA would have to drastically reduce its military presence around the world just to confront Russia? The USA would never do that unless they felt like just giving up global hegemony, just like that.

a reply to: RustyNailer

Not a lot of realism here though, they do not understand the U.S. will roll over Russia in any conventional war, the main thing people forget is, I hear the U.S. has not been in a real war , this and that, but the last time I checked combat is combat and the more important thing is not only do we have a much more advanced and capable war fighting machine, the most important thing that you learn from any deployment is how to fine tune your resupply and logistical lifelines, also by using forward operating locations and allied launch points, we have them beat on that front also, Russia does not have mobility on all points of the globe this is a huge advantage that is just plain truth, I start to wonder, there seem to be a lot of Putin fans, if we did actually go to war I think there would be a lot of defectors that will fight for Russia, at least that is how it seems to me with all of the cheerleaders.

So, now that I've stopped laughing so hard, it's very instructive to hear his majesty talking SMACK (as usual) about matters that might involve military action. But then again, he's just probably repeating the same garbage he gets from the "other" military experts, like the joint Chefs or the Department of Deference. What I know about russians is this. they might not have all the shiny new toys, but go and mess with them on they're turf, and they'll be coming at you with pointy sticks if that's all they have. Just want to let you know Mr Commander-in-chief, under your leadership and the leadership of previous administrations is this. You people don't know poop about how to use a military. If you want some supporting evidence? Piece of pie! Afghanistan. A 12 yr old playing Stratego has more military knowledge than the pentagon or the knucklechucks in the white house. But nice way to show the length & breadth of your TOTAL lack of understanding your foreign policy, just like your buds John and Hillary. I'm sure Vlad got a kick out of it!

originally posted by: riffraff
Frankly, I'm sick of hearing about how superior our military is without seeing any proof. If we're half as awesome as we claim to be then explain Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, The War on Terror, Etc. remember "shock and awe"? What a letdown that was. Remember MOABs? (Yawn)
Don't get me wrong. I believe that we have some tesla/alien wonderweapons but I also believe we will never use them for fighting a foreign army, they might as well not exist.

Posts like this are so irresponsibly stupid. Those "wars" were not conventional at all...the parts of those wars that were were swiftly won by the American conventional forces. For instance, the ground war for Gulf War I lasted 3 days. ..Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world at the time...Gulf War II lasted 2-3 weeks with an invasion force of 130,000 troops on the ground...Our conventional forces ARE superior to any countries in the world. I don't see what the OP is upset about. The hubris? Ok...but what did he say that was factually wrong?

The US forces are SIGNIFICANTLY superior to Russias. It isn't even close. The Russians know it...its why we see them going nuclear in their war games the second their forces are destroyed. They don't want war with us, and we don't want war with them because they've shown that they aren't afraid to go nuclear. Then no one wins.

originally posted by: Vovin

originally posted by: RustyNailer
I think Obama is a clown and one of the worst things to come across our nation. But he is right, we would roll Russia easily, toe to toe. Our Military is battle test and hardened, no one want's to tangle with us at the moment. But that may not be the case in a decade or so, if we keep gutting our military while others increase.

But what you're saying is the same rhetoric as Obama.

I just don't understand why people totally underestimate the Russian military.

The first thing about the Russians is that their military is battle hardened and equipped to handle regional wars. The Russian forces have waged war in Afghanistan, Chechnya/Dagestan, Georgia over the last 30 years.

When Russia pushed into Georgia, they sent veteran units from the Caucasus equipped with very used hardware. Within a week, Russia had almost made it to Tbilisi before Georgia begged for peace. Within that week, the Russians had smashed around a NATO-trained military, leaving behind corpses, flaming warships and crispy tanks and airplanes and drones.

The Russians didn't even get a chance to use their best toys. The Russians have:
- top-tier theatre SAMs
- satellites
- anti-warship cruise missiles
- 4.5 gen combat aircraft
- naval fleets
- tens of thousands of elite infantry
- heavy and medium MBTs
- intercontinental bombers
- short-range ballistic missiles
- scrambler and hacking capability
- modern heavy rocket/shell artillery
- all kinds of airlifters
- airborne mechanized infantry
- thousands of commandos

And that's just to name a few things that Russia has deployed en masse in its arsenal right now.

And Russia has full capability to produce and refine its own fuel to maintain this force.

That is not to say that Russia does not have a lot of tactical downfalls, but strategically speaking attacking Russia within Eurasia would be a failing campaign from the onset.

And they other key thing to note is that almost all of Russia's military is based in or near Russia. The USA has 700+ military bases around the world. How can anyone compare conventional troop strength when the USA would have to drastically reduce its military presence around the world just to confront Russia? The USA would never do that unless they felt like just giving up global hegemony, just like that.

First off, the US does not have 700 bases around the world. I've seen the graph you're talking about. Its wrong. We do have a lot of bases around the world. But we do not have that many. Secondly, US bases are in places like Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc. as a staging ground for the ability to move troops and thus maintain logistical advantage.

US logistics are the best in the world. No country in the world can bring to bear the type of force that the US can. In an unlikely scenario where the US is forced to confront Russia on their doorstep, the US would have air superiority...the Russian navy wouldn't stand a chance, and their airforce sure as hell doesn't against F22's, F15Es, F16 bloc 61s, B1B Lancers, B2 Spirits, B52's, and a host of stealth UCAV's at their disposal.

The air war would be over relatively quickly. That leaves the much beleaguered Russian ground force essentially with no cover fire...throw in some Abrams tanks and armored battalion ground forces and the US would have no issue marching to moscow...this is how good US conventional forces are in comparison.

After the Iraq Gulf War II in 2003, it served as a massive wake-up call to the Russians. Despite what a lot of you people think, (about US fighting weak nations) the Russians did not expect the swift victory over Iraq in 2003. The Russians actually helped aided Iraq in the run up to the military conflict...building their defenses and helping them with force logistics, etc. It was after the swift US victory that made Russia recalculate their response in the event a war were to break out between them and the US. They go nuclear because they know they don't have the conventional force structure to go toe to toe.

a reply to: rock427

When people say "700+ bases" they don't mean actual military combat active/ready bases. These can be anything from CIA safe houses to radar installations to whatever. Point is that America hypocrisy would never allow any such foreign installations in our country yet we expect and demand our presence in other countries under the umbrella of being the world's "protector" and harbinger of freedom and democracy. What a joke the US has become.

originally posted by: Skorpy
a reply to: Rosinitiate

So you believe doing the same thing over and over again is the correct course of action for mankind. The very definition of that is insanity.

History has proven to repeat itself. Mankind has been stuck in this loop of insanity. If choosing a way that leaves a bad taste in ones mouth then maybe that is what needs to be done in order to break free of our cycle.

War IS doing the same thing over and over again. I know you think you're being original but you're not. In fact interesting choice of words regarding insanity. To think its justified to murder (key word being: murder) billions of people equate to words I can't and won't use on this site.

originally posted by: rock427
The US forces are SIGNIFICANTLY superior to Russias. It isn't even close.

HOW?

Care to explain some insight into your claims?

Please explain the tactical and strategic and industrial and logistical and geographic superiority that the USA has over Russia.

When it comes to conventional, total-war military R&D, USSR/Russia and the USA have always rivalled each other. One advances one technological branch while the other adapts. It is absolutely absurd to claim that the USA is "significantly superior" when the USA's entire arsenal was designed to counter Russian hardware- you would be insinuating that Russia just gave up all R&D, forgot all it's military history and tactics, and this the USA is the only military industrial power in the world that makes new innovation.

This notion of thought is illogical in its entirety.

And just so you know, technological superiority is but one factor of many. For example, things like F-22s look all nice and flashy, but require dozens of maintenance hours per flight hour just to keep the thing flyable. Then what good is the integrated digital combat interface in the F-22 if the interlink is jammed and its support tankers and AWACS are burning out of the sky? And god-forbid some ice forms on external sensors, forcing false-readings into the automatic flight control systems leading the plane directly into the ground, or what if the computer feels like cutting off oxygen to the cockpit? These simple little issues have caused F-22s and B-2s to crash before in circumstances far outside the constraints of war.

In theory, big flashy hardware sounds good when it is presented by corporations to win contracts, but older and proven designs with modernized modifications are always so much more reliable in real combat conditions. This is why 1970s-era tanks like the Leopard, Abrams, and T-72 are still mainstay MBTs of many countries.

And another thing that's very interesting is that the Russians are so much more advanced in some fields than the Americans.

Americans just now are deploying weaponized laser systems. The Soviets had targeting lasers on satellites as far back as the early 60s. They had anti-air THEL turrets armed on mobile chassis during the Sino-Soviet war. During the 80s, they had a weaponized laser loaded on a transport plane (prototype), and pulse-laser turrets on Tunguska chassis that was capable of melting sensors and the eyeballs of helicopter pilots kilometres away.

Do you know why the Russians left these prototype weapons to rot in abandoned warehouses? It's because they knew they would not be tactically useful in modern combat, not like developing modern ERA armour and active defense measures for their conventional tanks (for instance). They knew the limitations of laser weapons in environmental conditions. They knew these weapons needed expensive and rare parts, and a lot of energy to operate. And yet the Americans are portraying them as invincible weapons of future combat. The two philosophies diverge here. One country with the smaller military budget invests in useful technology, while the other with a much larger budget invests it in many risky high-end fantasy projects.

Nevermind, making a thread.

a reply to: Vovin

Like I said in another thread S400s, MiGs, Ak47, Yakhont P800, Sunburn missiles. Russia is a force to wreckon with.