Russia could destroy NATO ships in 20 mins: Admiral

When the USSR collapsed almost twenty years ago now, they were almost thirty years behind us in technology, and it was revealled then that their ICBM's would have been lucky to hit the state of Texas. Do you really think that Russia has bridged the technology gap so quickly and vaulted ahead of us in military technology? Sorry, Russia has always lagged the western world in technological development, and their brief period of success after WW II was due to the scientists they managed to capture from the NAZIs. Russia's best computers are those they have been allowed to buy from the U.S.. Do they even manufacture a microprocessor of their own?

Russia will not even attempt to take on NATO naval forces. They don't stand a chance, even in the black sea, and they know it.

Yeah, that's why they built half the Space Station and we still use their rockets to get there, because of their backwards & terrible technology

What was wrong with the old Soviet system was it's tyranny, it's terribly dysfunctional economic system, and it's rigid ideology.

Their technology was (and is) very, very good.

Their training and their maintenance, not so much
But it appears they've been putting a bit more effort into that end of things in recent years. The Russia of 2008 is not the Russia of 1998 - they have a lot more money to spend now.

I'm glad our own military professionals don't underestimate & belittle the Russians the way you do.

If they did, we'd be in real trouble

During the Cold War they proved to be a tough and capable opposition - they kept us at bay for decades, and our military technology is nothing to sneeze at.

It is simple, the U.S. military complex has put space exploration on the back burner to enrich themselves, and they prefered to paint the USSR as a much more formidable opponet than it ever really was. As long as they can keep up the illusion, they can justify our unrealistic military budget.

Originally posted by poet1b
When the USSR collapsed almost twenty years ago now, they were almost thirty years behind us in technology, and it was revealled then that their ICBM's would have been lucky to hit the state of Texas.

Evidence please.

Do you really think that Russia has bridged the technology gap so quickly and vaulted ahead of us in military technology?

They were not far behind if behind at all and war is not just about technology. Want a list of recent wars where technologically superior nations lost wars?

Sorry, Russia has always lagged the western world in technological development, and their brief period of success after WW II was due to the scientists they managed to capture from the NAZIs.

They did not always lag and the oft discussed 'gap' in electronics and minituarization opened up in the 70's by which time the USSR had already built up their industrial base to the point where such factors would not be decisive. Their decision of not employing solid state electronics in every fighting system might have as much to do with nuclear war fighting doctrine as their industrial capacity so it's again in my opinion largely a presumptious argument on the part of those who would make that argument.

As for the German scientist the US got their fair share and it can be said that both countries gained advantages in different spheres of research.

Russia's best computers are those they have been allowed to buy from the U.S.. Do they even manufacture a microprocessor of their own?

'Russia's' computers are bought on the world market and you do not need the best of anything to implement it better in your overall strategy. As for their manufacturing capacity i have no doubt that they could have were they willing to spend the required resources but that was not the time in the cold war to halt your buildup in the hopes for deploying new generations of weapons some years later.

Russia will not even attempt to take on NATO naval forces. They don't stand a chance, even in the black sea, and they know it.

All their submarines can employ cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. The presumption that all naval engagements will remain conventional is shear folly and the Russians still have more than enough naval assets to win the war they had always planned to fight. Maybe it will help if you read about the Oscar class of submarine and their capabilities? Why have the US started to converted four Ohio submarines to basically emulate the tradition of Russian cruise missile submarines?

Stellar

Originally posted by dragonridr
Sorry have to say Nato Fleet would go under quickly.

One of the USN ships docked in Poti is the only one of its class, the most powerful of all ships as well. It is built to coordinate Air, Land and Sea Assualts between NATO, the U.S. and other allies.

Bear in mind, F-22's can take off from Saudi, conduct a raid in the black sea and return home to refuel and rearm.

You may think we can't respond, but indeed we can. Baghdad is only 800 miles from Poti.

The Black sea could be clear, the U.S. could have air superioty and 25,000 U.S. troops could be on the ground to enforce Gerogia's integrity within 2 hours of a presidential order.

Do not delude yourself.

But that won't happen. We called Russia's bluff, it now has a choice. Conceed to the U.S. in regards to Iran, or face us in Eastern Europe. Which do you think they will choose? Why has Iran been so quiet?



[edit on 6-9-2008 by crisko]

reply to post by crisko


25,000 troops on the ground within 2 hours


WTF?

where do they come from? teleporters? you cannot airlift that many troops in 2 hours at all - and in fact i really doubt the US could airlift that many in 1 go anyway.

and F-22`s in saudi? how did they get there? magic teleporters again? since they are ALL in CONUS

Originally posted by crisko

But that won't happen. We called Russia's bluff, it now has a choice. Conceed to the U.S. in regards to Iran, or face us in Eastern Europe. Which do you think they will choose? Why has Iran been so quiet?

[edit on 6-9-2008 by crisko]

I'm wondering who you think 'we' is.. this kind of polarized thinking is what starts wars.. and then you (or your kids, or your parents) will get to be shipped off and die while the ones who make us think in 'we against them' terms get to lay back and reap the bloody harvest..

And for Americans in particular it seems so easy to think about starting wars.. when was the last major conflict that was fought on your turf ?

Europeans have no desire to be caught inbetween two superpowers with penis-envy.

Nor do we desire to pay super-inflated rates for gasoline because a) supplys are being cut off and b) what is left is then used to wage wars.

(gasoline allready costs 1.5€ per liter on average.. I suspect if Russia cuts off the supply we'll see prices go ballistic, causing companys to go belly-up and cars becoming the sole property of the rich and shameless..)

Originally posted by crisko

Originally posted by dragonridr
Sorry have to say Nato Fleet would go under quickly.

The Black sea could be clear, the U.S. could have air superioty and 25,000 U.S. troops could be on the ground to enforce Gerogia's integrity within 2 hours of a presidential order.
[edit on 6-9-2008 by crisko]

First minimum time to deploy 25000 troops would be 72 hrs there not sitting on a shelf to be requisitioned. Ive been on emergency deployments and the logistics makes what you suggest impossible. Secondly the russians have a black see fleet weve sent a grand total of 4 us ships and a couple Nato frigates they would hurt the Russians but cannot be expected to win. Now the consequences for there fleet would be sever the 6th fleet is not too far away now they could destroy the Russian fleet. Now the russians know that sinking are ships would not go unchallenged that is why were willing to dock at the ocupied russian port we called there bluff and they know it.

Originally posted by mattifikation
Nice?
It's nice being back on the brink of nuclear war?

No but it's not so bad for those nations that are somewhat prepared...

It's nice that Poland and Germany might have most of their energy shut off on them? You think its nice that Russia is issuing these thinly veiled military threats at its neighbors every day?

They are in this situation largely because of the US manipulation of middle eastern oil supplies. If Iraq were allowed to develop it's oil infrastructure oil would cost around 10 - 20 USD today. The US is forcing it's NATO 'allies' into the hands of Russia for reasons i have tried to explain numerous times in the past. To blame Russia for the invasion and destruction of middle eastern production means is just about as silly as considering Poland blameless for choosing to throw it's lot in with NATO when NATO has no means to protect it from Russia.

Make no mistake, the West has been trying to find a diplomatic resolution to this conflict since it began, while Russia has been annihilating its neighbor and literally threatening to use nuclear weapons on anyone that dares to defy their will.

The west has armed and supported Georgia into taking aggressive actions in South Ossetia thus giving the Russians the pretext to invade Georgia proper. Russia are making threats but it is the US that is illegally invading multiple countries. The Russians are on the right side of the law as they are doing peacekeeping doing in South Ossetia and are allowed to keep the peace. I wouldn't trust the Russians with this duty but apparently the UN did so here we are.

And while Europe and the U.S. looks for a way to avoid military confrontation and conflict at all costs, Russia threatens to destroy their entire fleet... and you think it's nice?

How is the US national security state looking for a way to avoid the conflict? It couldn't instead ship supplies to various countries with hundreds of millions of starving citizens each ? Why try to help Georgia at THIS point in time?

Boy, the standards for this site have sure gone to crap.

Right, and you would do it no end of good by reading more and typing less.

Stellar

Whatever :shk: Yeah they could be able to but then they would have to contend with the rest if the USN and Russia in a standup fight would become the worlds largest collection of artificial reefs to be perfectly frank. Yes the bear is stirring but thier biggest naval stick was thier sub force an that is in a sorry shape and will continue that way for a while (it takes time to build ships).

Notice they are taking about a small task force not a CBG. Its for local consumption only IMHO. This guy may be the next Bahgdad Bob

reply to post by poet1b


pffft...typical jingoistic bobbins!

superior tactics will always win over superior weapons...such as the big ol' U.S. of A relies on

read your Sun Tzu!

Originally posted by crisko
One of the USN ships docked in Poti is the only one of its class, the most powerful of all ships as well. It is built to coordinate Air, Land and Sea Assualts between NATO, the U.S. and other allies.

I am sure you are going to explain how coordination is going to save it when that port goes up in smoke in case of US aggression in the region.

Bear in mind, F-22's can take off from Saudi, conduct a raid in the black sea and return home to refuel and rearm.

I didn't know the USAF had any F-22's deployed to Saudi Arabia.... In fact i'm sure of it.

You may think we can't respond, but indeed we can. Baghdad is only 800 miles from Poti.

Your point being?

The Black sea could be clear, the U.S. could have air superioty and 25,000 U.S. troops could be on the ground to enforce Gerogia's integrity within 2 hours of a presidential order.

And father chrismas might bring his army of elves to drive the Russians into the sea.... Sure i mean the United States armed forces can clearly do everything beside keep the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan including starting a war that would require manpower resources i can't bring to bear within very, very many months.

Do not delude yourself.

But that won't happen. We called Russia's bluff, it now has a choice. Conceed to the U.S. in regards to Iran, or face us in Eastern Europe. Which do you think they will choose? Why has Iran been so quiet?

Russia don't have to concede anything and if it wishes to stay in Georgia it has the means to do so irrespective of the wishes of the US government. Europe and China have more influence in Russia than does the US national security state and if Russia decides to do the 'right' thing by international law it will be to keep up appearances and to continue to destroy the image of the US in international affairs.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

I didn't know the USAF had any F-22's deployed to Saudi Arabia.... In fact i'm sure of it.

Stellar and Crisko: The US doesn't have any fighter aircraft in Saudi. I don't think we have anything in Saudi anymore, period. Maybe a handful of guys and that's it.

I'm all for not ignoring the Russian military might but there is one thing to consider here, they have done business scaring the rest of the World over the 50+ years of the Cold War with empty painted pipes passed off as Nuclear Missiles paraded in front of the World on Lenin's Day.

They are the masters of Bluff and I would not totally discount the possibility that they have nothing in the order of what they claim. You only have to read Pravda ( Russian Propaganda Rag ) to realize they are in the business of deceiving the "West" by which ever means possible.

Deception is their biggest weapon and sadly there are Major powers that know this but feel they can justify massive Arms Spending ( not needed ) to offset Soviet Claimed weaponry. The Defense Contractors are in on this scam as they benefit financially and the poor dumbed down public suffers with a fair percentage of Public money going into Military spending and not Hospitals for the Elderly.

Originally posted by SRTkid86
from many witness reports of multiple sonic booms in rapid succession with NOTHING around to see it.
it's not 100% verified fact, but you would be seriously ignorant to think that we layed all our card out on the table.

But who's are they and why do you think anyone else has all their cards on the table?

just look at how much we spend on our military, and then try to sit there and insunuate that we have used everything at our disposal. think about the SR-71 blackbird... they didn't come right out with it until right before we started using it.

I am confident that the US government isn't showing it's entire hand and that there are plenty of secret largely unused weapons. What you have some failed to understand is that this must also logically be the case for many other countries that are also still deploying nuclear weapons, air defense missiles and submarines. Would that explain why one specific country did not deploy much in the way of conventional and strategic nuclear weapons in the late 90's but did find the money to build large underground installations for instance?

im not saying Russia doesn't have tricks up their sleeves. but let's be intellecuatlly honest here... military technology tends to be about 10 yrs ahead of the public sector technology. we have A LOT that nobody knows about, and won't know about until we unleash it on somebody unfortunate enough to be in our corsshairs...

I would say thirty years but that's just a guess. As for the Russians having tricks up their sleaves you got that right.

"It is now quite clear," Khrushchev went on, "that the U.S. is not the world's most powerful military power. We are not trying to sweat anybody, but these are the facts." Rattling his rockets in the style he used to assail Western "military circles" for doing a few years ago, Khrushchev promised to "wipe from the face of the earth" any aggressor, and boasted: "Though the weapons we have now are formidable indeed, the weapon we have today in the hatching stage is even more formidable. The weapon, which is being developed and is, as they say, in the portfolio of our scientists and designers, is a fantastic weapon." (U.S. Atomic Physicist Ralph E. Lapp guessed that the Russians might be planning an H-bomb to orbit the earth indefinitely, ready on signal to plunge down on any terrestrial target.)

www.time.com...

"Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.

A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.

DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen

NEWS BRIEF: "Malaysia to Battle Smog With Cyclones"
by Chen May Yee,
Staff Reporter of the Wall Street Journal
Thursday, November 13, 1997, page A19.

"KULA LUMPUR -- Malaysia's war on smog is about to get a new twist. The government wants to create man-made cyclones to scrub away the haze that has plagued Malaysia since July. 'We will use special technology to create an artificial cyclone to clean the air', said Datuk Law Hieng Ding, minister for science, technology and the environment. The plan calls for the use of new Russian technology to create cyclones -- the giant storms also known as typhoons and hurricanes -- to cause torrential rains, washing the smoke out of the air. The Malaysian cabinet and the finance minister have approved the plan, Datuk Law said. A Malaysian company, BioCure Sdn. Bhd., will sign a memorandum of understanding soon with a government-owned Russian party to produce the cyclone."

"Datuk Law declined to disclose the size of the cyclone to be generated, or the mechanism. 'The details I don't have', he said. He did say, though, that the cyclone generated would be 'quite strong'. Datuk Law also declined to disclose the price of creating the cyclone. But, he said, Malaysia doesn't have to pay if the project doesn't work."

WSJ-Malaysia to Battle Smog With Cyclones

Again, my attitude is, if it's not going exactly right, we're going to make it go exactly right. If there's problems, we're going to address the problems. And that's what I've come down to assure people of. And again, I want to thank everybody.

And I'm not looking forward to this trip. I got a feel for it when I flew over before. It -- for those who have not -- trying to conceive what we're talking about, it's as if the entire Gulf Coast were obliterated by a -- the worst kind of weapon you can imagine. And now we're going to go try to comfort people in that part of the world.

Thank you. (Applause.)
END 10:39 A.M. CDT
www.whitehouse.gov...

So basically it looks like they can project as much force as they want without needing aircraft carriers or 'excuses' such as planes flying into buildings.

do you not understand why we are able to project our influence all the way across the globe? because any 1 country knows it's a death wish to tangle with us. they may win the battle, but we will win the war... assuming they don't dress like civilians and use them as cover to attack us...

Aurora Aircraft

our currently stealth fighters and bombers have been needing a replacement/upgrade for a LONG time now.

The US projects power conventionally because that's the only way it can 'safely' respond to the 'others' that secretary of defense Cohen were referring to earlier. If they step out of line such as they are doing now by supplying the Georgians hurricanes start lining up in the Gulf Coast ready to cause the economic damage worth hundreds of millions if not billions.

If you want more data as to how these weapons work feel free to ask.

Originally posted by SRTkid86
yea, but the US to my recollection has NEVER tried to invade Russia (not that i want that to happen.) so there is no history on how we would do... you know the country that is pretty much known for kicking ass and taking names in any toe to toe war we have been in.

The Germans and Russians were pretty much taking names in the second world war and the US wars after that hasn't shown the US armed forces in the best of light. Since i think that the Russian government got the message in Chechnya ( Russians are not interested in fighting aggressive wars against even terrorist) i am confident that they wont be the one's to overtly start world war three and will instead see how much economic and physical destruction they can wreck on the US with their interferometry weapons. The US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan is very much related to shoring up the USD by massively inflation world energy prices thus creating a artificial demand for all the dollars the Federal government is printing to pay it's bills.

im not trying to say that Russia wouldn't put up a fight, or that they don't have their own black programs going on... but we have been at this non-stop, dumping billions of dollars into black projects more consistently then they could dream.

And it mostly led to over expensive and militarily ineffective systems such as the B-1 bomber, the F22, the JSF the dismantling of land based re loadable ICBM assets and the total lack of investment in ABM defenses. The US has been systematically disarmed since the 70's and the efforts of some in the US government to rebuild the lost strength have been misdirected into largely wasteful and inefficient programs.

Continued

no doubt a war between the US and Russia wold be a long bloody fight... but there i no doubt in my mind, that if you take nukes out of the equation... we are far superior to them... and when you add nukes, we would be equals.

I think the US with it's NATO allies could hang on to Western Europe today if no WOMD were employed on either side but since the Russians were never interested in fighting a war on those terms NATO might not be so lucky if they overtly engage Russia.

i understand that you don't like America... i have seen your posts... but you don't ALWAYS have to take the opposite side of the fence, just because America is involved...

Manson does seem to hold the American public responsible and while i have sympathy with such a view i don't share it and rather focus on how Americans and others are so well deceived into lending unknowing passive support to their various governments.

i wish that some of you people would just accept that there is a reason that we are a hyper power (one step above super power.) in the world, and Russia is not... because we "won" the cold war... our economy continued to thrive and progress while their's collapsed..

The USSR did not 'collapse' as that would have involved far, far more bloodshed. The leaders of the then USSR understood that changes had to be made and that their time for making them were running out in the face of renewed American spending to catch up with their strategic lead. They allowed the empire to break up not because they could not keep it together , you can study it and see that they didn't even try, but because they no longer needed such closely aligned buffer states to ensure Russian territorial integrity. The economic forms enacted were always on the cards and as can be seen from events in the early 90's and today they only very briefly lost control in the late 90's. Anatoliy Golitsyn HAD plenty to say on how this would all happen and why long before it did so feel free to look up some information on the Internet.

As for a thriving US economy nothing could be further from the truth as can be seen when the US GDP figures grows larger in direct relation to the increase in federal, state and individual debt.

they are just now getting to a point where they can afford to beat their chests... they may not be all old and rusty, but they won't be a military threat to us for at least the next 10-15 years.. when they actually start to get some of their new ships online.

The Russian navy is certainly not what it was and while it retains much power i would not choose it over the current American navy. Provided that the backfire's and blackjacks can lend support to the Russian fleet it has easily retained the potential to massacre any American task force that comes into the baltic or anywhere within striking distance of it's shores.

Originally posted by SRTkid86
I do know this, based on facts...
if you don't want to acknowledge anything that has been brought up in this thread, then sure you could take the stance that Russia is superior, somehow, because they have less technology, when it comes to war machines... and that they are crazy.

Having 'less' technology is quite meaningless as a few high technology devices can make the world of difference in a otherwise obsolescent fighting system. On the contrary one can implement so much technology in a fighting system that your personal can't fight even when it can be kept in working order. The Russians have quite consistently chosen to implement the technology that is practicable while still allowing for large scale production and deployment whereas the US have too often chosen systems that takes multiple decades to bring into service at extraordinary cost, low operational tempo's and very reduced numbers; they could not get more than 15 combat mission out of a fleet of 100 B-1 bombers in all of the first gulf war.

but let's be honest here... the person who spends the most MOST OF THE TIME... is the person who ends up in the lead. im not saying that we are the best simply because we spend all this money, but it is DEFINATELY going to end up being a deciding factor, should this turn into a war...

This is not true as any knowledge of business would have allowed you to know. Spending on the wrong choices to produce the wrong product for the wrong audience can have even mighty companies on their knees in a short space of time. Spending more is as much a guarantee of superiority as building thousands of models of a fighting system that can not effectively engage what it was meant to. If the US had spent a fraction of the resources it did on building a national ABM defense system or deploying a additional thousand or so modern ICBM's that spending would have been worthwhile but as it stands it has just about enough ot everything to ensure that it looks far more secure than it in fact is.

im not beating my chest here, i have nothing to gain from it... I'm simply saying that when you look at this from a RATIONAL stand point... not one that is afraid of everything, or one that hates america for some reason. it is painfully obvious that we would make short work of Russia, in the state that they are in now..

I think if you inspected all the choices and systems deployed by each side you will find that the disparity in strategic capabilities more than makes up for the somewhat questionable state of the Russian conventional forces.

given them 10-15 years, and they will yet again.. be a formidable opponent... but not yet, not now. they are just getting to a point where they can really rebuild their military. we have had a strong one since day 1.

No one builds up a formidable military in 10-15 years without having a very significantly strong base to work from. Basically you believe that the USA had strategic superiority back in 1990 instead of having realised it started to disarm before the USSR did. If you can study that time and figure out why the 'winner' would disarm first you would have discovered the many contradictions that so few are aware of. One might argue that it has taken the US more ten years ( up to the year 2000) to just deploy significant amounts of fighting systems comparable to what the Russians had back in 1990 or can work from the premise that the USSR won the cold war forcing the US to start disarming by robbing it of a enemy while feigning weakness by engaging in economic and political reform.

as much as some of you would hate for this to be true.. but we aren't going anywhere... get used to it. if you don't like the way we do things... stop starting wars, and then expecting the US to finish them...

You type far too much for someone who have studied so little. If it wasn't for people quite as ignorant as yourself i could easily have remained silently humble and studied some more instead of spending time attempting to correct such base ignorance.

Stellar

[edit on 7-9-2008 by StellarX]

reply to post by StellarX


Here is an article on the MIG that was turned over to the U.S. by a pilot who defected to the west.

www.wvi.com...

The Mig had been manufactured in February 1976 and thus was one of their latest most sophisticated production aircraft.
Transistor circuitry was not used but instead the Soviets relied on vacuum tubes for most of their electronics. The Soviets reasoned the vacuum tubes were less affected by EMP waves in the case of nuclear attack; were more resistant to temperature extremes and they were easy to replace in remote airfields where transistors may not be readily available if repairs were needed.

Vacuum tubes were 50ties technology. In an aeroplane flying high up in the atmosphere, heating is not a problem, as it is extremely easy to pull in air from the frigid atmosphere and cool the electronics. By the seventies, transistor technology would have been more available in remote outposts, except perhaps for the USSR which still ran on fifties technology. The most important factor, vibration, is where tubes are most vulnerable. This made transistorized technology far superior, not to mention space saving. By 1976, the U.S. was already mastering the technology of microprocessors, which by the eighties gave them a technological supremacy that made the Soviets throw in the towel. That was the real scenario.

What I would like to see is proof of this.

Their decision of not employing solid state electronics in every fighting system might have as much to do with nuclear war fighting doctrine as their industrial capacity...

I see this claimed, but it is BS. Electronic shielding was an easy solution to this problem. If the USSR had known what they were doing, they would have known this, but having worked with Russian electronic Engineers, this was something they just weren't aware of.

The integrated circuit, the microprocessor, put the U.S decades ahead of the Soviets, and the rest of the world for that matter. Having worked in Aerospace for several years, I know a little about the subject. Computer controlled electronics greatly enhance instrumentation and controls to a degree that few can appreciate. Supersonic missiles are not easy to turn and maintain control, especially in short distances, like less than 2KM. Without wings, there isn't a whole lot to stabilize maneuvers. I completely doubt that the soviets have the microprocessors or the software capable of generating the real time control needed to accomplish such feats.

Can you name some commercially viable Russian made computers? Where is the evidence that Russia has leaped to the leading edge of computer technology? Do you really think that Russia can best U.S. technology using U.S. computers that the U.S. allows to be sold internationally?

You might want to consider that the military industrial complex in both the U.S. and Russia have vested interest in resuming the cold war, not to mention the IC's and the NWO. Don't buy into the smoke and mirrors.

Wake up boys.

The U.S. pulled out of Vietnam because of the massive protests taking place in the U.S., mainly because of the draft. At that time kill ratios of the U.S. to the Viets, who were highly skilled in jungle warfare, tactically, were still 10 to 1. With technological advances currently kill rations of U.S. soldiers verses others is around 100 to 1, and those odds are only going to increase in U.S. favor. Sorry, but technological superiority has been winning out since the Persians attacked the Greeks, and no doubt long before that.

Russia never had a chance to take Europe, in that respect they have always been a paper tiger, and the results of the meeting of U.S. tanks with Soviet tanks proved that.

The only thing that stops the U.S. military from doing whatever it wants to do is the U.S. public's will to do such things.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by manson_322

 

Sorry, but in each of these encounters, U.S. kill ratios were ten or twenty to one over Soviet technology. The real encounter in technology was in the first gulf war, when U.S. tanks when up against Soviet tanks, and completely out classed them. The USSR has never tried to compete with the U.S. or Britain in Naval confrontations, and with good reason. Georgia is simply out manned and out gunned, facing a Russian force far too large for technology to give them any means to overcome the odds.

Sorry, but in each of these encounters, U.S. kill ratios were ten or twenty to one over Soviet technology.

where does this BS come from ????

in the korean war , US and allied AF lost 3200 aircraft , while communist forces lost 840+
in the vietnam war, USAF and USN lost 1000+ aircraft(due to fighter,SAM,AAA)
en.wikipedia.org...
and the vietnamese were using the relatively obsolote mig-17,mig-19 and yet managed to have a good ratio vs US F-5 phantoms and other fighters
1:2 (for 1 US craft 1.5-2 vietnamese craft shot down)
and on the korean war there are conflicting reports on the performance of mig-17 and Sabre .....

and even in the indo-pak war of 1971 indian mig -21 downed several the F-105 pakistani starfighter(which cost double of mig-21)

American claims of 10:1 kill ratio (or some other fantastic ratio of this sort) during the Korean war in favor of the U.S. pilots is commonly explained by the "superior" training of American pilots. It is admitted by most Western historians and, most importantly, by many American pilots themselves, that technically the MiG-15 was at least a match for the best American jet fighter of the Korean War - the F-86 "Sabre." It would be appropriate to mention that the UN air forces in Korea included many other aircraft types considerably inferior to the MiG-15.

In general, Western historians do not like to talk about why they think American pilots were the most experienced during the Korean War. There's certainly no way to support this position with facts simply because its erroneous. It is a fact that the Soviet pilots flew approximately 3.5 million combat sorties during the Second World War. This is 2-3 times more that the number of sorties flown by the U.S. pilots during this war. ["Red Phoenix", by Von Hardesty.] While the number of American W.W.II fighter aces, who shot down 20 or more aircraft, barely exceeds two dozen, the number of Soviet aces, who shot down 29 or more aircraft is well over a hundred. The number of Soviet aces credited with shooting down 20 or more aircraft during the Second World War is in hundreds. [Soviet Aces of World War 2, Hugh Morgan, Osprey aerospace, 1998]

This is a very important fact, considering that the Soviet pilots in Korea were represented by the best-of-the-best the VVS could offer. Many of the Second World War aces participated in the Korean war as pilots and commanders. This was a new era of jet aircraft, but the weapons used on aircraft were essentially the same old cannons and machine-guns taken from the propeller fighters of the W.W.II and most elements of air combat remained unchanged. Most but not all. As you will find out from the story below, W.W.II experience did not mean an automatic victory in Korea, especially when some high-ranking officials ignored warnings of experienced pilots.

There was an enormous gap is the number of experienced pilots in the US and the USSR after the Second World War. And this gap remained during the Korean War as well, allowing the Soviet VVS to attain a favorable 3.3:1 kill ratio against the UN aircraft. During the Korean War the VVS pilots flew 1,872 combat sorties and downed 1,106 US-made aircraft, of which 650 were F-86 "Sabres." In air combat over Korea against the VVS, Americans lost about two "Sabres" for every downed Soviet MiG-15. ["Russian Weapons: War and Peace," by Vladimir Babych, 1997]
www.aeronautics.ru...

The number of Soviet non-combat losses was only 10 aircraft. The number of non-combat losses, officially admitted by the US, is 945 ["The United States Air Force in Korea 1950-1953" by Robert Futrell]. This enormous number non-combat losses is a testament to the "superior" training of American pilots as well as to the attempts on the part of the US government and the military to present combat losses as "accidents." The Chinese and Korean air forces lost 231 fighters in combat, which brings the total number of MiG losses to 576 aircraft. The Americans claimed to have shot down 2,300 "Communist aircraft." [Aviation Encyclopedia, 1977, New-York] This was one of many wild claims made by the media and certain unscrupulous historians, contradicting even the USAF claims. Later claims by the US of enemy aircraft downed during the Korean War, were revised to 976 and then further to 935 - still hundreds of aircraft more than the actual number of "Communist" aircraft downed. Americans admitted to losing a total of 1,035 aircraft,
www.aeronautics.ru...

The real encounter in technology was in the first gulf war, when U.S. tanks when up against Soviet tanks, and completely out classed them.

and yes, on the gulf war , so called soviet tanks were monkey models using steel penetrator ammo from the 70's

Monkey model was the unofficial designation given by the Soviet Military to versions military equipment (armored vehicles, airplanes, missiles) of significantly inferior capability to the original designs and intended only for export.

The monkey model was exported with the same or a similar designation as the original Soviet design but in fact it lacked many of the advanced or expensive features of the original.

Performance and capabilities of monkey model equipment were so degraded from the original as not to be in any way representative of the original design capabilities.
en.wikipedia.org...

Monkey-model tanks were equipped with lower grade fire control systems, lower grade armor, lacking NBC protection, and provided with substandard ammunition. For example, the inferior 3VBM8/3BM17/18 APFSDS 125 mm smoothbore rounds were exported for use in the T-72 family of tanks. It was specifically designed for export and had a penetration of sloped armor at 2000 m that was half as much as that of the original Soviet model.
en.wikipedia.org...

the 3BM-17 was a steel round which the soviets stopped using in the 70's and was useless by the time of gulf war ,

and the soviet army was using the much more advanced KE either made of monocrystal wolfram carbide or rounds like BM-32(made of DU)

Originally posted by crisko
You are right, fire enough, and they could get through and sink a ship. But ther are 10 - 12 of these deployed on a single Agies class destroyer.

There are normally 2 CIWS per escort ship; they are a last ditch defense system and basically akin to a abandon ship alarm in case of a nuclear war.

The amount of missles required, well that cost would exceed the cost of the destroyer itself.

Presuming conventional warheads and very effective SAM defenses that might be the case but if the patriot's record is anything to go by cruise missiles get trough. If one looks at the British experience in Argentinian water or the Israel's wars with it's neighbours you walk away with the notion that cruise missiles with conventional warheads aren't easy to stop and that you would be well advised to write of entire fleets when the war goes nuclear.

Marines deployed north and east of the headquarters suddenly observe a low-flying missile passing overhead, pointed towards Kuwait in the direction of Camp Commando. IMEF’s air defense computer terminals display nothing out of the ordinary, and no Scud alert is sounded. Marines in the headquarters are astonished and surprised to hear the signature of a low-flying jet engine overhead, followed by the noise and concussion from a large warhead blast.
An Iraqi Seersucker antiship cruise missile converted into a land attack role has just missed decapitating IMEF by a mere one hundred yards. The missile, launched from the Faw peninsula, flew undetected and unengaged straight through the heart of an alert and robust U.S. theater air and missile defense system. Following this attack, the U.S. Marines maintained a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) of F/A-18s over the Faw peninsula for several days.
Fortunately, the cruise missile in this instance was armed with only a conventional warhead. Because of their payload capabilities and their inherent ability to fly over large swaths of land, land attack cruise missiles (LACM) are a platform optimized for the employment of chemical or biological weapons. Currently, such an attack would likely go undetected, preventing U.S. forces from donning protective equipment and taking shelter.
During OIF, five Chinese-built CSSC-3 “Seersucker” antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs) were launched by Iraq against land targets in Kuwait. The attack described above was the first. A second attack, using two Seersucker cruise missiles on 28 March, was aimed at ships at the naval base of Kuwait City. One missile homed in on a radar reflector, the other on a seafront shopping center. Two Seersuckers were also launched on 31 March—one at the port at Umm Qasr and the other at troops at Safwan. Not a single one of these missiles was targeted or even detected in-flight.

www.jfsc.ndu.edu/current_students/documents_policies/documents/jca_cca_awsp/Cruise_Missile_Defense_Final.doc

Israeli officials and experts agree that the Patriot failed in its military mission. The only debate in Israel is whether the Patriot hit one or none of the Scuds it attempted to intercept. Israeli officials tracked each Scud to the ground and thus had the craters to prove that the initial claims of intercept success were false.

The Army claims, with varying degrees of confidence, that the Patriot Missile system destroyed 52 percent of the Scuds.

The General Accounting Office does not share that confidence. Independent review of the evidence in support of the Army claims reveals that, using the Army’s own methodology and evidence, a strong case can be made that Patriots hit only 9 percent of the Scud warheads engaged, and there are serious questions about these few hits. (GAO Report: "Operation Desert Storm: Data Does Not Exist to Conclusively Say How Well Patriot Performed, " September 1992, NSIAD 920340) The speed of the Scuds, the limitations of the Patriot missile system, and the confusion and targeting difficulties caused by the break-up of the Scud missile as it re-entered the atmosphere seem to have contributed to the high failure rate.

www.ceip.org...

If the Argentinians had more exocets and spent a little more effort of protect their airfields from commando raids the British would have gotten off it even worse.

Think about it. The tomahawk costs the United States about 1.3 million a pop. Okay, Russia would have to launch something like 500 to sink the NATO fleet, spending damn near 1 billion in the process. Do you think the fleet is worth that? No, it isn't. To think Russia even has that many missiles is crazy talk in itself

I have no idea how you came up with the math but either way the cheapest ocean going fighting ship in the USN today is probably the Arleigh Burke class which costs around 2 billion dollars to build in 1985. Basically if you have missiles and can get them to within firing range without losing the equally expensive firing platforms you will win eventually, provided they can shoot down everything until then, by virtue of exhausting the anti air defense

Look, here is how it is, plain and simple. Russia misplayed their hand and now they look the fool. Not even China is siding with them. Russia Nuking a country, not gonna happen becuase at the first sign of such an attack there won't be a Russia left.

China has signed a mutual defense pact with Russia lately but informally they have been allied since the late 70's. Nuking Russia is probably not on the cards because they have significant anti ballistic missile defenses and more than enough nuclear weaponry to return the favor tenfold.

Point blank, no one liked Russia before and now most like them even less. The country is in such a bad state they are yearning for the days of Stalin, you know the guy that killed 5 million of them?

They are not yearning for the days of Stalin, they do have significant allies ( India, China) and hold the energy strings that can destroy many more countries who do take a hostile stance against them. Russia is not seen as the state which are invading countries on the other side of planet and it would in fact take quite a bit more than intervening in the affairs of neighbours to get Europeans to worry about Russia.

To even think "the bear is back" just show how little most of you know. They have bought 20 new fighters in the last year, total military budget of 36.5 billion last year compared to almost 800 billion (300 billion of which was for war) spent by the United States.

Few knows what the Russian defense budget really is unless you have decided to believe Putin or the Russian Duma? Where does the funding for the activities at the Yamantau facility come from and what is produced or constructed in those underground factories?

Look, we don't want to deal with Russia, thats why they invaded. The Pipeline. It cuts them out of the picture. But now they know they are screwed, NATO won't talk to them and China just showed them the cold shoulder.

Russia invaded Georgia because the Georgians were stupid enough to kill Russian peacekeepers; a big no-no if your a insignificant little nation next to Russia. The Chinese don't have to do anything, but nothing, so they are. The pipeline does not cut Russia out of the picture as Russia is the second largest producer of crude and gas today.

Russia, know what comes to mind when I see Russia? Three letters. LOL.
Those kids need to grow up. Most of them were thugs in their youth (including the Stalin they so yearn for) and are living two decades in the past. The world has passed them by and they are pissed.

And this response was probably wasted on you.

Stellar

[edit on 7-9-2008 by StellarX]