Russia threatens to block NATO routes

reply to post by alchemist2012


Rods from god? Did that program ever get canceled?
Military laser satellites?

But nah nuclear is our biggest game changer i don't think with the materials on earth we could create something more intense...

I think the most likely thing is a Nuclear missile carrying satellite...

Originally posted by alchemist2012
reply to post by trentyh

 

At this phase of all the news thats been popping up i think that the U S more than likley has a new super weapon that may make Nuclear seem like a hand grenade The money has to be going somewhere right.

My goodness, an outside-the-box thought in this thread.

Congrats. It's only been 50+ years since Roswell et al.

reply to post by alchemist2012


If the U.S. had an ace, they would have used it by now. Lieberman would demand it. Last I checked Russians had Haarp first, so they'll have to go in a different direction.

Originally posted by iamconcerned
reply to post by alchemist2012

 

If the U.S. had an ace, they would have used it by now. Lieberman would demand it. Last I checked Russians had Haarp first, so they'll have to go in a different direction.

Good thoughts, none worth bird crap but hey, good thoughts.

iamconcerned, be concerned...but stay out of discussions about politics and war mongering.:

reply to post by LiveToSpendIt


Yes all mighty, I shall defer to you at all times from now on

Originally posted by trentyh
reply to post by alchemist2012

 

Rods from god? Did that program ever get canceled?
Military laser satellites?

But nah nuclear is our biggest game changer i don't think with the materials on earth we could create something more intense...

Do you think that we can find new materials out in space or something?

PS: The Russians have superweapons beyond nukes. Look up the Elipton system. In terms of bio-chem warfare, they have the largest stockpiles in the world. They've also experimented with weaponized chemical lasers, specifically those used for ASAT roles, in the cold war arms race with the Americans (US also has effective models). Russian EMP weaponry is probably the most covert and effective in the world, though EMPs are more useful against civilian targets and energy production facilities than in combat.

It's the little things that matter

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


The materials we can easily extract from earth is what i meant...
What about the fact that our biological weapons are ten years ahead of theirs... We have weaponized diseases too... On a history show once i saw that alot of Russian scientists came to America after the cold war to help reverse and counter act the things they made...

We also have EMP hardened electronics.... Russia has to be able to touch us with those weapons before i take them into play and if they release their chemical weapons trust me we will unleash ours....
Ever heard of MAD? yeah it applies to everything but conventional warfare...

Russia doesn't have that big of an edge over us... And the rods from god program was intended to put WMDs' on a satellite so if it came down to it we still had our endgame even if on the ground we had no ability to fight back...

Before you try and counter this argument look at AIDs' i am pretty sure that was weaponized... and thats pretty old imagine what the world has now....

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
The primary defense budget and the overseas contingency operations budgets are separate. If you add on operational costs then the number even goes higher.

Since 2010, I think the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were included in the defense budget.

Originally posted by daaskapital
Defence spendoing has nothing to do with how effective a military force is, it's about the training they recieve. Look at Australia, second to the bottom, and the Australian Defence Force is one of the best, up there with the poms and Americans

Well, yes defense spending has a lot to do with how effective a military is, believe it or not.

If you have $500 and you go buy an automatic pistol from the wrong side of the tracks and I have $5K and buy a brand new sniper rifle and scope, who is more likely to kill the other first?

Part of that defense spending is also, in fact, training.

Originally posted by Vardoger
All that money's gone a long way to......winning?....the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan....All that Money made it a cake walk didn't it......All the latest toys with bells and whistles and you're still losing to a rag tag band of cave dwellers (MSM's view) with IED's and rpg's...

Winning what? You actually think the hands guiding the US military care about winning? They don't care about taking complete control over of some scrap of desert, they care about money, oil and power.

Originally posted by trentyh
What about the fact that our biological weapons are ten years ahead of theirs... We have weaponized diseases too... On a history show once i saw that alot of Russian scientists came to America after the cold war to help reverse and counter act the things they made...

That's a lot of big claims. Frankly I wouldn't trust a TV show in terms of believing these claims.

The fact is that chemical weapons are designed to attack your vital living systems, usually the lungs, which results in a relatively quick death. Biological weapons are, more or less, a longer term weapon meant to infect targets who, in turn, live long enough to infect exponentially more targets.

There is a curve here for the effectiveness of such weapons. If they are capable of killing someone, then they are just as effective as the next. So the whole argument about who has better biological/chemical weapons is a joke considering that they are designed to kill mass amounts of people. The delivery systems/methods for these weapons is a more important argument.

We also have EMP hardened electronics....

That's a nice fantasy, to believe that you're completely safe from EMPs simply because you have the technology to counter them. It doesn't actually mean that such technology is encompassed in all of your electronics. This is also why I specifically said that EMPs would be better against civilian urban environments and energy production facilities.

Ever heard of the "three day rule"? If you can cut off a society, specifically a city/town, from essential things like food and water for three days, then it is lost to anarchy. An EMP would decimate entire cities under this very reasoning, because you can't sustain an urban population without electricity and they will be forced to fend for themselves, cutting off whatever production value the city had for the larger state. It's called strategy.

Ever heard of MAD? yeah it applies to everything but conventional warfare...

Is it?

Russia doesn't have that big of an edge over us... And the rods from god program was intended to put WMDs' on a satellite so if it came down to it we still had our endgame even if on the ground we had no ability to fight back...

Can you even confirm that there is such a project in operation as your "Rods from God"? Or do you just like to think that there is?

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that it's not possible. In fact, Russia too has similar systems (Elipton). But since such projects are top secret, we wouldn't have access to the reality of what space weaponry this or that country has.

PS: Rods from God isn't about "putting WMDs of a satallite"; the only thing put on it are tungsten rods about two metres long. The system itself is an WMD. And just because it is a satallite, doesn't make it invincible either.

Before you try and counter this argument look at AIDs' i am pretty sure that was weaponized... and thats pretty old imagine what the world has now....

Considering we know the human genetic code inside and out, we can create all kinds of mass-death biological agents. The technicalities don't matter however, only the fact that it can spread and kill does.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


So your saying that out of all this the US has no deathhand to play no way to fight back?
Chemical weapons are great in the short term but after a while cures will be found... Biological on the other hand is like cancer... You can slow it down but 90 percent of the time it will achieve its goal...

I also know that not all of our electronics are EMP hardened... think about my statement a bit more before you react... Most military electronics that are vital are EMP hardened...

Russia knows about the B2 stealth bomber and yet they still do not have the radar system to detect it imagine how much we have they cant counter
Just based on our trends we have more advanced stuff that we as nobodies will ever know about! the huge amount of defence spending isnt being put into bullets

Russia can put up a amazing fight but in the long term America is more equipped to handle world wide destruction... We have a better intelligence network than any other country besides Britain and as such we can detect almost any major threat world wide and be prepared to handle it

We have chemical weapons as well as biological, and nuclear....You really want this to escalate to where we find out who is right? Russia has the built up muscle but they haven't made any significant gains in a while! America on the other hand has since WWll built up everything it can and it continues to do so... Remember that topic we had about Russias' Death hand program or whatever? It's ineffective as soon as the missile defense shield goes up...

Russia can not curb stomp us hands down... Russia and China might be able to beat us up until the endgame arrived... With our strategic global alliances the USA is the most powerful country on earth...

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by trentyh


Problem with EMP is how you would deliver it.

Same way you would a nuke.

reply to post by RSF77


Here is the fiscal 2012 DoD budget:
www.gpoaccess.gov...

and the fiscal 2012 OCO budget:
www.gpoaccess.gov...

These are from the official "Budget of the United States Government" document issued by the Office of Budget and Management.

Originally posted by trentyh

But nah nuclear is our biggest game changer i don't think with the materials on earth we could create something more intense...
.

Oh yes we can, to make even the thermonuclear look like a water pistol.
Which world are you in.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Considering we know the human genetic code inside and out, we can create all kinds of mass-death biological agents. The technicalities don't matter however, only the fact that it can spread and kill does.

edit on 2-12-2011 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

Its believable biological / scalar and what have you and imo can be delivered even thru electric transmission lines.
But dna specific , I would imagine has to be classified at all levels.

We have the materials just not alot of them...
Uranium is alot less common than you would think

reply to post by RSF77


heard of narrowband HPM? Thats what a virtual cathode ray oscillator generates and destroys hardened electronics on nuclear missiles.Gigawatt,terrawatt and petawatt narrowband HPM suffices for trident nukes.'

For civilian targets ,broadband HPM is best and is omnidirectional and thats what a nuke emp is about.

Originally posted by trentyh
We have the materials just not alot of them...
Uranium is alot less common than you would think

True but copper and steel are pretty abundant. Aern't they.
Oops, I've said too much already.

Yes, yes, it's very, very important to discuss how we can blow each other up a zillion times over...like it's the 60s all over again.

ITMT, in the thread which has been sufficiently hijacked with tuff guy talk, "Russia threatens to block NATO routes", the major powers and their allies are moving the end game chess pieces into geo-place.