Russia suspends arms treaty -- The World War III Wheels are in Motion.

reply to post by humanunnaki


I suggest you take the time to read some of my previous threads there slappy.

Peacenik? Me? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA


Just because I have absolutely NO desire to be in another f'n war-for-profit that will USELESSLY cost the lives of more of MY friends and family does NOT mean that I am some damn tree hugging hippy.


Thank you, come again.


Jasn

Originally posted by StellarX
Russia's conventional strategic forces ( their nuclear chemical and biological ) is stronger than their US counterparts and they also operate sufficient defenses to make any attack by similar US strategic forces largely ineffective. The Russian federation is operating from a position of strength and their alliance with China and India is making the US position increasingly perilous.

Poor old stellar once again confusinf himself. NBC weapons are not conventioanl forces. LOL, what defences ? your imgination working overtime again.

It doesn't make a difference what the US has done or is expected to do in the future. Putin has had his mind set on this since the USSR collapsed. He wants to return to the days when the USSR could just bully other countries to get what it wants (e.g poisoning opponents in other countries, threating to cut off oil supplies, equipping rogue states/terrorists, flying bombers near other countries territory).

reply to post by Cthulwho


Russia used to do those things before and was generally considered to be the enemy because of it. I know that in my country (Sweden) we also regarded the Russians as the greatest threat back then.

Now its the US doing those things, and it should be considered the enemy too, just like Russia was. Right now the US is the old Russia. Very dangerous to the world.

Putin makes sense to me and Bush doesnt. Putin doesnt want war, but he is forced to respond to the unstable US, just like US was responding to the unstable Russia before. US was the "good guy" back then, but not anymore.

I think its good that Putin stands up to the US, like I said before. The world needs someone to do it, and it needs to be a superpower. Preferably both China and Russia actually. The US is not exactly a humble country, is it... it takes and takes until someone says stop. It has grown very arrogant.


[edit on 9-11-2007 by Copernicus]

That's very true, but my point is that Russia isn't doing this to fight the evil America, Russia is serving its own self interest just like it used to and just like the US is doing now. As the phrase goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

reply to post by Cthulwho


Well, its rebuilding its defenses and asserting itself on the international scene. I dont really see whats wrong with that? If you have a country like the US acting like a bully on the world stage, Russia and other countries need to be strong to be able to get respected by the bully, no?

Nobody would complain if the US responded to Russia putting weapons in space and invading countries, so why is it wrong that Russia responds to the US doing it?

I think its of course partly out of self interest that Russia tries to gets stronger, but no superpower will sit by doing nothing while another looks to get out of control.

The arms race and the cold war is a good example of what happens (and has to happen) in this kind of situation. Its actually good for world peace, even though it doesnt seem like it. The power balance is very important.


[edit on 9-11-2007 by Copernicus]

Take a look at what the EU is doing, their not going around poisoning political opponents or flying bombers near the US or Russia etc. But they seem to be doing very well, even though they don't have a massive and/or aggressive military. If Russia played their cards right they could have become a part of the EU some time in the distant future, somehow I don't see that happening anymore.

reply to post by Cthulwho


Well, the UN didnt manage to stop the Iraq war for example - the US went ahead and attacked them and there was nothing anyone could do. That kind of shows how important military power is. If Iraq had been attacked by, lets say, Venezuela, what do you think the world would have done?

So I think the power balance is important. Its just like having a group of kids, where one is acting out and being aggressive. If there are no teachers around, someone is going to get hurt.

Second double post in 5 minutes. Are the servers acting up?


[edit on 9-11-2007 by Copernicus]

I think this is more to do with the Duma than Putin, how did that fact jump from the Duma to Putin?

but anyways, this is a good explain of 2 things:

Putin wanting to reclaim lost land.....something i have believed in for a long time.

A reaction to what the US has been going since 2005 around the world but mainly around the former USSR.


I hope Russia doesnt invade Georgia and Moldovia, I would hope the world does something to push them out. crazy scary

Originally posted by centurion1211
Stellarx, haven't seen one of your posts in a long time. Still posted to the russian consulate in Capetown, I see.

If you have contacts with them maybe you will arrange a interview for me? I think it's high time i get paid to proclaim what i believe to be the truth!

Summing up another of your mind-numbing posts,

I can recommend some very effective training exercises that will allow your mind to keep up with even the most convoluted of 'opinions'.

I get that everything good that has happened in russia is due solely to the russians, while anything bad is (of course) the fault of the U.S. (or someone not russian).

That's a good approximation, yes. There are obviously instances and details that are open to wider and conflicting interpretation but on the whole you 'numbed mind' seemed to have manged very well!

See, it would have only taken you seconds to type something with the same meaning as what you wrote.

Sorry for wasting your time.

Oh, BTW, did the U.S. help the russians at all to win WWII?

Wall Street funded into existence ( with the complicity of FDR) the Nazi war machine so that i may deal with the 'communist' ( read kinda socialist) threat that the SU posed to the capitalist model of human exploitation. Sure socialism ( not that undemocratic type of socialism was a good idea) can kill you but at least that's not it's primary intent.

And russia didn't lose the cold war?

Your empire fell apart.

My empire? I have told that i am not Russian, a supporter of socialism or 'communism' or have any family relations that i can trace to that country! Sure the USSR changed but how much did the SSR's contribute to the overall strength in the first place?

Some of your military basically had to walk home after being booted out of eastern Europe.

After failing to fire many shots in defense of empire. Sure sounds like a 'good effort' to me.... Do you really believe that the poles had the capacity to 'boot out' the Soviet armed forces if it did not want to go? Right....

Your military technology was left to rust. Numbers of your WMD's had to be secured by the U.S. and other countries.

The SSR's returned all their nuclear weaponry to the Russian federation and the money the US spent mostly landed up in private Russian hands or were used to construct other weapons.

Don't argue, I know people .... Continue to boast all you want, any rational person would see the above as a (huge) defeat. And we all do in spite of your unending posts.

I 'know people' to and i am not sure how that became a qualifier to posting what you believe. I am not boasting about Russian strength but trying to warn people like you against a threat that did nothing but change shape in a effort to allow your government to fool you into going along with their surrender and general disarmament.

At any rate, the thread is about the meaning of russia suspending the arms treaty.

Sure it is and that's why i am pointing out that they sign such treaties when it suits their interest. They will disarm anyone they can trough faking such efforts at home and the policy have been quite effective in taking apart the US strategic and conventional forces.

To me, the premise that russia is stuck between trying to regain the hollow super power status it had during the cold war and at the same time trying to keep being relevant is still quite valid.

That's what you must believe as your are not ready to consider the possibility that many of the things that are going wrong with the US economy and military might in fact be due to foreign interventions.

Truth is that russia has been reduced from the status of a major adversary to the status of just being a thorn in the U.S. side, one we have to throw a bone to every once in awhile - and that's what really hurts (you).

I can understand how people have little but disdain for the conventional powers of the Russian federation but i do not understand how people have managed to forget that the USSR still operates more strategic nuclear missiles with more throwing power and survivability having erected ABM defenses in the S-300 variety of missiles that are likely to absorb at least the majority of the US nuclear warheads. I do not understand why people refuse to check FAS and all the other organizations that readily admits this!

Stellar

^^^ same old waffle. Seems the Russians possi\essing all this incredible weaponry still quake in their boots when the US wants to put a few interceptors in Eastern Europe. The S-300 is hardly an effective ABM system, never been teste in combat and barely intercepted any ballistic target during testing.
BTW, what people could you possible know, reading some hair brained article on the internet doesn't qualify for inside knowledge. In fact you hvae been poroven wrong on numerous occassions and you defences is to write severl pages of crap ( always repeating yourelf ). Blah.

Originally posted by mad scientist
^^^ same old waffle. Seems the Russians possi\essing all this incredible weaponry still quake in their boots when the US wants to put a few interceptors in Eastern Europe.

As you should have realised from our past discussion they are are diligently playing their role as 'victim' and likes the position that robs the US authorities of blaming Russian for many if any of the current problems the world faces. Things have gotten so bad for the American rulers that they must build F-22's, aircraft carriers, joint strike fighters and hunter submarines to ostensibly fight global 'terrorism'. It makes a mockery of common sense but since the Russians have been so adept at playing dead, by shaking their fists from atop their rusting tanks and submarines, even fewer people would believe in the Russian threat than the terrorist one. Maybe that's what you get for engaging a nation that still considers chess a national sport?

The S-300 is hardly an effective ABM system, never been teste in combat and barely intercepted any ballistic target during testing.

I see your now claiming that the S-300 system 'barely' intercepted ballistic targets so it seems that i have in fact managed to move your position a few inches towards the truth in the last two years. Knowing that i am in fact making progress i will now redouble my efforts!

Lets move past your opinion and consider what the US defense establishment considers the truth to be.

The Bush administration’s policy was not an automatic continuity or continuation of all treaties with the USSR, but provided a framework to review each agreement and determine necessary changes. Such a review was particularly important for arms control agreements. As President Clinton stated in a letter to Congressman Gilman in March 1997, and I quote, “Particularly in the area of arms control, a case-by-case review of each agreement was necessary.” In that case-by-case review, the administration negotiated a memorandum of understanding [MOU] on succession to the ABM Treaty. The MOU, was concluded in September 1997 and identified Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia as the successor states to the treaty. This selection of successor states seemed to be consistent with a statement by the President that, and I quote, “neither a simple recognition of Russia as the sole ABM successor (which would have ignored several former Soviet States with significant ABM interests) nor a simple recognition of all NIS, Newly Independent States, as full ABM successors would have preserved fully the original purpose and substance of the treaty, as approved by the Senate in 1972.” That was the letter from the President to Congressman Gilman. The administration went on to reiterate in that same letter that the MOU on succession “works to preserve the original object and purpose of the treaty.” To summarize, the administration believed in 1997 that recognition of Russia alone or all of the successor states together would not have preserved the original purpose of the treaty.

www.missilethreat.com...

In mid-1994 the Belarusian air force operated two interceptor regiments with MiG-23, MiG-25, and MiG-29 aircraft; three strike regiments with MiG-27, Su-17, Su-24, and Su-25 aircraft; and one reconnaissance regiment with MiG-25 and Su-24 aircraft. Four regiments had 300 helicopters, and one transport regiment had more than forty helicopters. Personnel numbered 15,800.

Belarus also had an air defense force with 11,800 personnel and 200 SA-2, SA-3, SA-5, and SA-10 surface-to-air missiles. The system was being integrated into Russia's air defenses in 1994 owing to Belarus's lack of resources.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Kazakhstan is investing the equivalent of one billion dollars to upgrade its air defense system, reports Interfax, with the upgrades reportedly being made by a British company, BAE Systems. The systems upgraded reportedly include the S-75, S-125, S- 200, and S-300. The size of the contract reflects the extent of the defense systems built by the Soviet Union

www.missilethreat.com...

THE AIR DEFENSE FORCE
Structurally consist of three Corps, deployed correspondingly in Lviv, Odesa, Dnipropetrovs'k. The Force HQ is located in Kyiv.
48 000 men are in Air Defense service. The Force is armed with Air Defense complexes S-75; S-125, S-200, S-300. It also includes Fighter Aviation.
The Air Defense Force of Ukraine was developed at the basis of formations, deployed in Ukraine at the moment of its independence's proclamation.

ukraineinfo.us...

So my question is this? Why force these three countries who both operate the S-300 or S-200 to accept the ABM treaty if they do not have systems that can be operated or adapated ( with operating and infrastructure development) to operate in a ABM role? Do you think that is some kind of coincidence when the weapons creators say they are ABM systems?

*The Moscow-system missiles, the SA-5 and SA-10/12, were tipped with small nuclear warheads so they didn't require the incredible bullet-hitting-bullet complexity of the U.S. systems developed during the Clinton years. U.S. spy satellites repeatedly identified tactical nuclear-warhead storage sites at the interceptor bases spread across the Soviet empire.

* G.V. Kisun'ko, the chief designer of the ABM systems developed or deployed around Moscow for more than three decades, confirms in a 1996 memoir that large Hen House and Dog House radars at Sary Shagan were designed as battle-management radars for the early Soviet ABM system for the defense of Moscow. Kisun'ko also stated that the SA-5 was designed as a dual-purpose SAM/ABM in conjunction with the Hen House radars.

* B.V. Bunkin, the designer of the follow-on SA-10 and SA-12 (S-300 PMU and S-300V in Russian nomenclature) missile systems, and several other Russian sources, confirmed that these also were dual-purpose SAM/ABMs. SA-10s largely have replaced the thousands of SA-5 interceptors deployed across the Soviet empire during the Cold War. Bunkin's latest SAM/ABM design, the SA-20, is scheduled to begin deployment this year.

www.findarticles.com...

Why do we doubt that information when Griffon ( V-1000 ) were succesfully used to intercept ballistic missiles:

In March 4, 1961, in the area of the A testing ground the V-1000 ABM with a fragmentation-high-explosive warhead successfully intercepted and destroyed at an altitude of 25 kilometers the R-12 BM launched from the State Central Testing Ground with a dummy warhead weighing 500 kilograms. The Dunai-2 radar of the A system detected the BM at a distance of 1,500 kilometers when it appeared over the radio horizon, then the M-40 central computer found parameters of the R-12 trajectory, and prepared target designation for precision homing radars and the launchers. The ABM was launched and its warhead was actuated by the signal from the command post. The warhead of the ABM consisted of 16,000 balls with a carbide-tungsten core, TNT filling, and a steel hull. The warhead had a fragments field shaped as a disk perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the ABM. The warhead was actuated by the signal from the ground with a deflection necessary for formation of the fragments field. The warheads of this type were designed under the supervision of Chief Designer A. Voronov. The M-40 central computer was designed by the Precise Mechanics and Computer Research Institute of the Academy of Sciences under the supervision of Academician S. Lebedev. The computer could make 40,000 operations per second.

The V-1000 had two stages. The first stage was a solid-propellant booster, and the second stage was a sustainer stage with a warhead which was equipped with a liquid-propellant engine developed by the Design Bureau of Chief Designer A. Isaev. In addition to the fragmentation warhead a nuclear warhead was also designed for the missile. The flight tests of the missile, which could intercept targets at altitudes of up to 25 kilometers, started in 1958. The parallel approach to the target at a strictly counter course was chosen as the method of the ABM's homing. The V-1000 was delivered to the trajectory calculated according to the homing method along the regular curve, parameters of which were defined by the predicted target trajectory. P. Kirillov was the Chief Designer of the missile's automatic pilot. On March 26, 1961, the ABM destroyed the warhead of the R-5 BM with 500 kilograms of TNT. Overall, during the trial of the A system 11 launches of ABMs were performed which destroyed warheads of BMs, and experimental ABMs with heat seeking self-homing warhead, radio-controlled fuses, and optical fuses were also launched. The S2TA version of the V-1000 ABM with a heat seeking self-homing warhead was tested at the A testing ground between 1961 and 1963. The flight tests of the V-1000 with the nuclear warhead (without the fissible material) designed in Chelyabinsk-70 were conducted in 1961. For this warhead two types of proximity fuses were designed and tested: the optical fuse (designed by the GOI under the supervision of Chief Designer Emdin) a and radio-electronic fuse (Chief Designer Bondarenko) for the R2TA and G2TA versions of the missile.

Systems for surmounting of air defenses intended for domestic BM were also tested during the trial of the A system. The launched target ballistic missiles were equipped with inflatable false targets Verba, unfolding false targets Kaktus, and Krot active jammers. Overall, the field tests of the A system showed a principle possibility of BM warheads interception.

www.fas.org...

[edit on 9-11-2007 by StellarX]

And given the fact that the Sa-5 Gammon were a highly refined version of this missile :

On 04 March 1961 an R-12 ballistic missile fitted with a mockup in the form of a 500-kg steel plate, simulating a standard warhead, was launched from the State proving ground at station Sary-Shagan. The target was detected by proving ground radars at a range of 1,500 km and destroyed by a V-1000 antimissile missile, outfitted with a high-explosive-payload.

In 1963 the Griffon [NATO reporting name] interceptor was paraded in Red Square, and characterized as an ABM interceptor. The Griffon was a two-stage liquid fueled interceptor that was 16.5 meters long with a range of over 250 kilometers. Construction of the RZ-25 ABM system, which employed the V-1000 interceptor, was first detected in the early 1960's near the Estonian capital Tallinn. However this construction soon ceased. A highly modified version of the Griffon, the Gammon, was subsequently developed.

www.fas.org...

why have you decided not to believe the developers of the missile or the US intelligence sources that consistently argued that the Sa-5 and S-10 are dual use systems?

Russia inherited most of the Soviet empire's illegal national ABM defenses. Although the Hen Houses and LPARs located in the successor states created significant gaps in coverage, Russia still controls 12 or 13 of those radars. Consequently, SAM/ABMs still defend most of the Russian Federation from U.S. ICBMs, much of the SLBM threat, and Chinese missiles. Scheduled completion of the LPAR in Belorus will restore complete threat coverage, except for the gap left by the dismantled Krasnoyarsk LPAR. Granted, the Hen Houses are old, but the United States has been operating similar radars for 40 years.

Despite its economic difficulties, Russia continued development and production of the SA-10, adding (in 1992-1993 and 1997) two models with new missiles and electronics and replacing more than 1000 SA-5 missiles with late model SA-10s having greatly improved performance against ballistic missiles of all ranges. Russia is protected by as at least as many (about 8500) SAM/ABMs as in 1991, and they are more effective. No wonder Russia shows little concern for its proliferation of missile and nuclear technology.

Even more impressively, Russia has begun flight-testing the fourth generation "S-400" ("Triumph") SAM/ABM designed not only to end the "absolute superiority" of air assault demonstrated by the United States in the 1992 Gulf War and the 1999 Kosovo operation, but also to improve Russia's illegal ABM defenses against strategic ballistic missiles. The S-400 is scheduled to begin deployment in 2000, more testimony to Russia's commitment to maintaining its national ABM defenses in violation of the ABM Treaty.

www.security-policy.org...

So why did they invest so much in their SAM systems at a time when they were supposedly dead broke?

This new evidence reinforces longstanding concerns about systematic Soviet violations of the ABM Treaty. Battlefield management radars arethe long leadtime component of any ABM defense system and the Soviets seem to have gained a great deal of experience in this field since 1975 when they installed an ABM-X-3 radar in the Kamchatka impact area for their ICBM tests. Over the years, the Soviets have also been upgrading their surface-to-air (SAM) bomber defense systems--now presumed to perform an ABM role. Since the Carter Administration, the Soviets repeatedly have tested various types of SAM missiles in'a discernable ABM mode at altitudes above 100,000 feet and have deployed thousands of less capable SA-5 missiles around-Soviet cities. These illegal ABM activities and the development of an anti-tactical ballistic missle system clearly point to a Soviet decision to subvert the ABM Treaty shortly after signing it.

Refusals to acknowledge these Soviet treaty violations point to the perennial dilemma of what to do after detecting cheating. The Administra-. tion is doingitself and the country no favor by refusing to acknowledge the mounting evidence that the Soviets are developing a capability which seriously erodes strategic stability and will soon permit the Soviet Union to break out of the ABM Treaty. The Administration should document and publicize Soviet ABM activities and Treaty violations. It should accele- rate the U.S. ballistic missile defense (BDM) program. Unless Moscow can refute the evidence that its radar and weapons programs are not de- signed for an ABM role, the U.S. should abrogate the ABM Treaty.

www.heritage.org...

Why did the US intelligence serves mostly refuse to acknowledge what has now been admitted by the Russian designers of these weapons?

Immediately prior to the signing of the ABM treaty, the Soviets had developed a surface-to-air missile, the SA-5, which was observed to have a peculiar trajectory. The SA-5 was fired high above the atmosphere and then would descend to intercept and destroy enemy bombers. While technically such a trajectory could not be ruled out, logically, however, it could not be accepted as this type of trajectory represents the least efficient way to shoot down enemy aircraft. On the other hand, the SA-5?s trajectory would be just the ticket for shooting down incoming ballistic missiles which themselves travel above the atmosphere. Taking this into account, the SA-5 had to be an ABM weapon. But with the ABM treaty almost in hand, this fact was ignored and the treaty went into effect. The treaty remains in effect, limiting development of a U.S. ABM system. Meanwhile, Russian dual-purpose (anti-aircraft/anti-missile) missile systems like the SA-5 continue to exist.

www.thenewamerican.com...

Does Sam Cohen's opinion matter?

The ABM Treaty was quite a different matter; it had to be violated from the beginning. The infamous Krasnoyarsk radar was the sixth in the LPAR series, constructed in that location by a Politburo decision in deliberate violation of the ABM Treaty. However, the really serious Soviet violation was nationwide deployment of the dual purpose SA-5/10s and the battle management radars in violation of article 1 of the ABM Treaty.

When CIA concluded in 1967 that the SA-5 was just an anti-aircraft (SAM) system, and that the Hen House radars were just for early warning (and space tracking), a majority of the U.S. intelligence comunity joined the CIA choir. Subsequently ClAts analysis of the SA-5 and the Hen House radars was extended to the SA-10 and the LPARS. Once enshrined, CIAls erroneous analysis was not challenged even when "hard" evidence to the contrary appeared.(31)

By the time the Empire collapsed, more than 10, 000 dual purpose SAM/ABM interceptor missiles were deployed at SA-5/10 complexes. Yet the U.S. officially counts only the l00 interceptors of the "ABM X-3" system at Moscow, which are permitted by the ABM Treaty. ABM X-3 is a scaled up model of the NIKE-X system, vintage late

www.fas.org...

Why did the old USSR and now the RF get away with so many treaty violations?

However, Soviet and Russian sources, including former Premier Alexei Kosygin and the Chief Designer of the original Moscow ABM system, confirm that: the SA-5 and SA-10 were dual purpose antiaircraft/missile systems (SAM/ABMs), and that the Hen House and LPAR radars provided the requisite battle management target tracking data. These and other sources cited in The ABM Treaty Charade are not exhaustive.

Nevertheless, CIA has not revised its position on this issue, nor have the U.S. Congress and the public been informed that the ABM Treaty was a valid contract from beginning to end.

In the late 1960s the U.S. sacrificed its 20-year technological advantage in ABM defenses on the altar of "arms control." As Russian sources now admit, the Soviet General Staff was in total control of Soviet "arms control" proposals and negotiations, subject to Politburo review, which was largely pro forma. The Soviet military's objective was to gain as much advantage as possible from "arms control" agreements (SALT).

www.jinsa.org...

Why do we trust the same CIA who were as surprised as anyone when the Berlin wall came down?

And why at all question the technology when the US demonstrated the capability in the same era with ABM missiles that were in many regards ( if not just plainly so) superior superior to what the SU deployed then or deploys now?

28-Aug-1970 First operational test intercepted a Minuteman RV at 100 mile range.
11- Jan -1971 First dual launch. One intercepted an RV while the other intercepted a fixed point in space.

Another capability that was envisioned for the Improved Spartan was a loiter capability. This involved shutting down the rocket motors and then re-igniting on ground command at a later time to allow a more accurate interception. Due to this loiter capability, the resulting increase in accuracy would allow a warhead yield reduction from 5MT down to 1MT.

The Spartan missile had one more, albeit brief, lease on life in the early 1980s as part of the Strategic Defence Initiative to provide it with an exo-atmosphere interceptor. One concept proposed involved using Homing Intercept Technology (HIT). This is basically an optically guided non-nuclear warhead. Due to its relative simplicity, a single Spartan could hold a number of them instead of the nuclear warhead. Such a design however, contravened SALT agreements and thus never got past a paper concept and HIT was relegated to smaller missiles which were more suited to carry one such warhead.

www.paineless.id.au...

Continued

[edit on 9-11-2007 by StellarX]

[edit on 9-11-2007 by StellarX]

Given concerns about the previous programs using nuclear tipped interceptors, in the 1980s the U.S. Army began studies about the feasibility of hit-to-kill vehicles, where an interceptor missile would destroy an incoming ballistic missile just by colliding with it head-on.

The first program, which actually tested a hit-to-kill missile interceptor, was the Army's HOE (Homing Overlay Experiment) which used a Kinetic Kill Vehicle (KKV) . The KKV was equipped with an infrared seeker, guidance electronics and a propulsion system. Once in space, the KKV could extend a folded structure similar to an umbrella skeleton of 4 m (13 ft) diameter to enhance its effective cross section. This device would destroy the ICBM reentry vehicle on collision. After test failures with the first three flight tests, the fourth and final test on 10 June 1984 was successful, intercepting the Minuteman RV with a closing speed of about 6.1 km/s at an altitude of more than 160 k

www.answers.com...

So what precisely do you object to?

BTW, what people could you possible know, reading some hair brained article on the internet doesn't qualify for inside knowledge.

Hair brained articles? That's a interesting term to use for the type of sources i have always used!

In fact you hvae been poroven wrong on numerous occassions and you defences is to write severl pages of crap ( always repeating yourelf ). Blah.

I have admitted to making errors ( incidentally something you have never done no matter how obvious the mistake) but on this topic they have so far been minor and i have always presented alternative sources that shows that my basic ideas and statements are in fact accurate and easily verifiable given sufficient effort to check the sources!

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
but i do not understand how people have managed to forget that the USSR still operates more strategic nuclear missiles with more throwing power and survivability having erected ABM defenses in the S-300 variety of missiles that are likely to absorb at least the majority of the US nuclear warheads. I do not understand why people refuse to check FAS and all the other organizations that readily admits this!

Stellar

Blah, blah, blah on most of this post, but the above line is interesting, if not somewhat out of date. What USSR? Or have you just slipped up and agreed that bringing back the USSR is what Putin is all about?

Originally posted by centurion1211
Blah, blah, blah on most of this post, but the above line is interesting, if not somewhat out of date. What USSR? Or have you just slipped up and agreed that bringing back the USSR is what Putin is all about?

What i have always argued is that the USSR did not really form and that it's rulers reformed of their own accord to bring about the changes that would best allow them to retain power. I do not think it's accurate to still call it the USSR and that slip of the 'tongue' was as far as i am concerned just that! Thanks for superficial commentary....

Stellar

Russia will never return as one of the dominate nations both economically as well as militarily...



What this graph shows in countrys who have the largest share % of GDP in the world. Russia is no where on the map. It is a whole different world now, old threats diminish, newer threats emerge, me must not become held up in the past. It is a new era. Russia will not challenge on an economic, military scale the US, China, or India in the future. China should be russias main concern at this point.

[edit on 9-11-2007 by West Coast]

Originally posted by West Coast
Russia will never return as one of the dominate nations both economically as well as militarily...

Others, including myself, disagree.

en.wikipedia.org...

What this graph shows in countrys who have the largest share % of GDP in the world.

GDP is NOT the ultimate measure of wealth or future economic prowess.

Russia is no where on the map.

But there are also few factors that stands in the way of a very resource wealthy and educated nation of 150 odd million becoming very wealthy indeed. If someone wishes to argue against what is most obvious lets hear it but until then i will have to go with the fundamentals that indicates a fast expanding Russian economy for decades to come.

It is a whole different world now, old threats diminish, newer threats emerge, me must not become held up in the past.

So stop being held up by the past?

It is a new era. Russia will not challenge on an economic, military scale the US, China, or India in the future.

Admitted Russian strategic weaponry is still superior to admitted American strategic weaponry and i would like you to tell me why you do not accept that as fact.

China should be russias main concern at this point.

China was Russia's main concern in the 60's and 70's but then they showed the Chinese the error of their ways and brought them into the fold. If you wish you can today consider China a close , if unequal ally, to the rulers in the Kremlin. To consider China to be either a military or economic threat to Russia is to admit that you will not address what is currently happening to the US economy while both the Russian and Chinese economies are fast expanding.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
China was Russia's main concern in the 60's and 70's but then they showed the Chinese the error of their ways and brought them into the fold. If you wish you can today consider China a close , if unequal ally, to the rulers in the Kremlin. To consider China to be either a military or economic threat to Russia is to admit that you will not address what is currently happening to the US economy while both the Russian and Chinese economies are fast expanding.

Stellar

China is a future giant, Rusia will never even come close. Russia's economy is tiny, without her natural resources she is irrelevent. In fact her enomy is only being driven by natural resources, wihtout that Russia would be dead in the water. It may be intersting to know that China has twice as many honors students than Russia has students. The logical conclusion is that of course CHina will lay one giant turd on Russia. Russia has nothing to offer China exceot natural resources and some military trinkets here and there, nothing else. BTW, the Russian population isn't that educated.