Red army to receive 250 new types of weaponry in 2006

look i don't think anybody here believes everything they read, you seee everyone has his or her own opinoins, Me and stellar X i guess agree on some points such as the dangerous point the dollar and the US economy are in, and many others, Rogue, i don't knwo your point of view, i'm relatively new to this thread, nevertheless, Whitechappel is an educated man nad i guess ahs his opinions that while not totally wrong from my percpective, are flawed also from my percpective, and they do conflict with a few of mine.

In my opinion this argument is pointless seeing as no generation will ever do what those who fought during WW2 did. They were called the allies because they were just that, allied in the cause to defeat Germany and Japan. It was a team effort, so lets cut the bull #, I give credit where credit is due, and that is to all the Allies.

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm, I'd hardly call modernising old weapons, ' new ' weapons systems. Sounds more like bravado than anything else.

Agreed. Maybe another version of the AK-101 but I don't see them making that many totally new weapons.

look you don't need to have a totally new tank, to have a good tank, for instance instead of researching a new tank, you can renovate an already built tank. and that's what the russians do.

Originally posted by rogue1
Quite simple, I believe in reality.

Well i have shared some of it with you over the last year and it's clearly you believe what you like whatever the reality turns out to be.

I don't believe everything I read, such as yourself who reads fringe books and websites.

No one believes everything they read... Calling what you disagree with the ' the fringe' is a very popular tactic when you do not actually a meaningful reason for disagreeing and it is getting progressively more popular in western media where no time for discussion is allowed. I tend to source my final arguments almost exclusively from official news channels around the world and it really matters not how i came up with my theory if i can support it from the NYT, Washington post or other 'supposedly' reliable western sources. You really can not have it both ways even if that is what your type of hypocrisy normally demands of reality.

Let me know when you actually travel out of good ole South Africa, tell me when you have some world experience, because we both know right now you have none.

More experience in close mindedness i do not need as i have already been blessed enough to run into the likes of you.

So I believe what I have seen and expereienced, you believe in fantasy, you are an easy person to convince.

You have never convinced me of anything but i guess the case can be made that your just incredibly bad at sharing ideas and that i am in fact easily convinced by 'others' who employ more logic and general reasoning towards changing my mind. I obviously don't agree with your assertion but it's a interesting premise considering your dismal failure in managing anything close so far.

Quite franly I hvae proven your statements wrong too mnay times to hold too much stock in what you say anymore, haven't I

Even a broken clock is right twice a day and as percentage i would say your about as successful when trying to prove anything.

And here we have your strategy. Some author doesn't agree with whta you say, you get on google until you find someone who does - typical tactics.

Well for that to be the case i would have to have a motive/reason/incentive for believing a certain thing and until you can establish that in each case your claims of bias are more than meaningless.

I find it funny especially when you have quoted articles in the past, which actually prove your statements wrong, then you find something else which agrees with you - unfortunately not factual though.]

I article may agree with certain things i believe but disagree with other and that is why i will quote a certain part and then later ( if requested) show with other information why i believe certain claims from a given source are correct while others are not. John pike for instance runs 'globalsecurity' which is not a horrible site as long as you do not trust Pike on anything related to Russian ABM and ICBM technology. The reason for that is that he campaigned to keep the ABM treaty ( keeping America disarmed while Russia has thousands of ABM missiles) when the old USSR with which the treaty was signed supposedly no longer existed. You can clearly not trust the man on American strategic security issues( his strangely based in Virginia and the CIA has been lying about Russian ABM's since day one) as his clearly biased in favour of disarming America at all cost. Other than that i have so far no issue with his information and wont have until i have reason.

That's how i work and since i apparently arrive at results few have success contesting i do not yet see reason to alter it. What you call 'investigation' is imo a joke as it does nothing but perpetually reinforce your views. Any method that is based on self serving ego protectionist ends is completely useless( edit)when working towards discovering objective reality.

Stellar

[edit on 5-8-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX
That's how i work and since i apparently arrive at results few have success contesting i do not yet see reason to alter it. What you call 'investigation' is imo a joke as it does nothing but perpetually reinforce your views.

LOL, had a god laugh at this, you seem to be describing your own thought process. People easily contest and prove wrong many of your views but your midset is rigidly fixed into place, you don't accept any counter arguments or any facts proving you wrong.
You assume other people do the same, because you assume we are like you. I can assure we are not like you. we bring light to the world, maybe you should bask in that light once in a while.

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, had a god laugh at this, you seem to be describing your own thought process. People easily contest and prove wrong many of your views but your midset is rigidly fixed into place, you don't accept any counter arguments or any facts proving you wrong.

Show just one instance where i did not admit a mistake when it was pointed out to me. I have and will continue to defend my views to the best of my abilities until their validity is seriously contested; disagreeing without a factual base does not prove a thing.

You assume other people do the same, because you assume we are like you.

Your nothing like me and even thought i tried to assume my own intelligence and knowledge for you my efforts were put to shame by your vapid arguments over the last year. I do my best to give every people credit for intelligence and knowledge but if a specific individual consitently prove my assumption inaccurate i tend to change my mind over time.

I can assure we are not like you. we bring light to the world, maybe you should bask in that light once in a while.

Nuclear detonations also release a great deal of light and i consider your efforts ( from great personal experience ) as constructive.

Stellar

StellarX, man you got patience.

I quit rouge long time ago.

You might like these;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I hope you'll get a laugh out of them, Cheers!

Originally posted by northwolf
StellarX

Russia needs the investments in Energy sector:

So does most of the world including the USA. How many blackouts in the USA over the last two years?

1)Electrical and heat networks are nearing the end of their lifetime

Things tend to 'live' longer in Russia and i expect this to be true for this sector as well.

2)Large amount of Nuclear plants are getting too old and expensive to maintain

Assuming that is still where the power is coming from.

3)Gas and Coal fired plants are so inefficient that russia looses Billions of dollars each year to heat and power losses (Efficiency of a Russian CHP plant is about 50%, when in finland it's about 85%)

Billions of dollars is not much considering the state income from other sources. What will it cost in terms of dollars to make the distribution grid more efficient? Would it in fact make any sort of economy sense to even try? Not everything has to be for profit you know...

Russia needs to revise prising into a market based full price:
1)oil price for domestic use is 1/3 of market price, Natural Gas price 1/4th

Any state worth it's while will subsidise energy cost with taxpayers money as that is pretty much what it's SUPPOSED to do with the money.

2)efficiency of for example Domestic Heating in Russia is about 50% lower than what it is in Finland (Similar Climate)

What does efficiency matter when the alternative will in the short and medium term ( and possibly the long term) impact the user/customer?

3)Without Market based revenues, a Energy comppany in russia is unable to maintain it's production and distripution systems. That leads to a disaster in a long run.

US agri business seems to be doing very well with it's 20% of AGRI GDP state subsidy. The Russians are not the only one's employing subsidy and this one makes far more sense than the agricultural one imo.

Russian Energy comppanies are private corporations, but goverment has restricted their pricing in domestic business to a level that cannot sustain maintenance, upkeep, fuel and improvement costs.

Then they will make that profit on the world markets which they seem to be doing with relative ease considering current market prices. One might in fact consider just how much Russia is influencing world markets as it certainly helps them more than almost any other nation on the planet...

Thus leading to a old, inefficient and environmentally poor system that has bad service and low reliability.

Define 'bad service' and ' low reliability' and tell me if you would not be able to life with it considering just how very cheap it is?

If the government owns, runs and maintains the energy system, then the fixed pricing and subsidiaries are not a problem. But in the current situation it leads to the deterotiating systems and to a situation where 50% of the produced energy is wasted.

If one assumes that these corporations are in fact as independent as you consider them to be. The USSR/Russia has not changed much and the same people are still in control on most levels. Wasting 50% of energy generated is only a problem when the generation cost is high which depends on a great many factors. Considering the type of technology Russia deploys against the USA i don't believe they have real energy generation problems...

Questions?

Thousands, always.

Stellar

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I understand the cold wars over but even our allies dont like the level of control we have over the GPS system why do you think Europe is creating the Galileo systems?

The military still has "Selective Deniability" and can shut the system off in different parts of the world or non US military systems. They can degrade the signal or just shut the whole system down.

I personally wouldnt even want the UK having that amount of control over a US military system let alone Russia or China.

[edit on 21-6-2006 by ShadowXIX]

whats the beef the UK is and will allways be on your side, if we went to war most english wouldnt see the point because were friends and not foes, i understand that with this high GPS tracking system they will get jumpy if a plane moves, plus why do YOU have to trust us you are not america you are a minority.

sorry for being rude forgive me shadowXIX

peace out