Russia Preparing for Nuclear Attacks on U.S, Britain

OH NO! MiG-31's. HA! ive said it before and ill say it again. TECHNOLOGY IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE MAN USING IT! an american F-4 can beat down anything ivan throws at them. Russian pilot training is nothing compared to that of the USAF, IAF, or the Luftwaffe. ivan is hopeing to catch as many of our fighters on the ground with his nukes. see? thats why ivan is choosing his last options as his first. He CANNONT win a conventional war aginst the US or the west and ivan knows this. Thats why ivan has been building up his nuclear stockpile, when he should of been destroying it.

Originally posted by $tranger

Originally posted by KrazyIvan


One: the serbs got lucky by shooting down ONE F-117
and damaged another two with 60s sam

Two: The MiG-31 is just a new version of the MiG-25.
and?

Three: How Skilled do you think that russias air defence troops are? and how reliabel are those sam batteries?
the s300 and s400 are the only abl systems in the world
well and the arrow.. the pentagon even wanted to buy them to replace the patriots.


HELLO? our pilots went aginst the same stuff in Iraq and we killed almost all of em!
sa-300/400 in iraq?

nah only camels with stingers

Four: Those SAM sites would be taken out by aircraft launched HARM anit radar missles. They ride the radar's beam all the way down to the target.
do some research about the s300v and s400 first

[Six: if a war did break out between the US and theRussians our first target would probally be ivan's missle silos taken out by cruise missles.
again mig-31 and s300 systems.


Seven: The USAF is working on developnet of a stealth cruise missles with conventional or nuclear cabapilities.
russia has them from the 80s and now it got a new stealth missile the yakhont-3 and alpha.

Eight: Sealth is a great advantage in warfare.
on 3d world countries.. yes.

Nine: The US Navy is far suprior to its Russian counter
we dont need navy, fast speed missile boats and couple of tupolevs are enough to destroy you're navy

OMFG!

The AS-6 air to surface missle and be intercepted by carrier born aircraft. not to mention chaff rockets, and the CIWS anti missle turrets on almost every US navy ship. true Tu-22M's can make havok with a US battle group but it wouldn't do enough to trun the tide in ivan's favor. not to mention that the missle boats would be blown outta the water by carrier born aircraft. Yuogoslavia is not a 3rd world country and stealth worked over there. so we lost one. it wasnt a whole freaking fighter wing of em. still the MiG-31's and sa 300's have nothing on all the technology we have. stealth aircraft shorten the enemy's radar range and is able to fly around the shortened range of the radars. not to mentions that the US leads the world in electronic warfare. ivan wouldnt have a clue until our plane were right on top of him.

[Edited on 22-6-2003 by KrazyIvan]

and how come you couldnt say anything to my number five? you know im right on that one. ivan cannot win a conventional war aginst the united states. NO WAY NO HOW.

and shooting down a cruise missle? thats hitting a bullet with a bullet.

While it is probably true that a conventional war with the U.S. would leave Russia in worse shape than it is in now - being overconfident is a weakpoint that most Americans (that includes the military) share. Overconfidence is what caused us to lose the troops we did in Iraq in the first place - thinking we can just stomp over 'em like we're invincible will usually get a boot put in your hind quarters.

Americans shouldn't be so cocky (and yes, I'm an American (not a Patriot!!), but I am 50%-ish Russian, and am proud of that ). Have confidence that you can overcome whatever enemy you face, but don't think you're invincible.

hey troops get killed in war on both sides. i cannot believe that americans only want to fight a war if none of our guys get killed. that's impossible. everytime our boys are engaged in a firefight some of them wont come back. you cant help that. that's the reality of war. and if americans wont have that we should just do what france does. "I surrender." there is no way that some of our troops wont get killed in a war. if you think that we will only fight a war with no us casulties you must be a communist...err democrate. but what we can do is minimize our casulties with better training and technology

and the united states military doesnt think its invunerable. does somlia ring a bell. damn communist..err democrates. i really gotta stop doing that. the only thing that the us military is is the best in the world. i have absolute confidence in our military to take out any threat to us our our allies. if the russian military wants to start something, we'll gladly finish it.

Hi to everyone,

I would have hoped that even among the least experienced of you in military analysis, experessions such as "american equipment always wins" and "us air weapons are decades ahead of everyone" (yea thats you -onlyinmydreams-) would if even thought, not been publicized. Not to mention the first rule about "not undeestimating your enemy", some of your comments borders with the most cretinist chauvinism...
You should check reviews by AMERICAN (you get it?) military analysts(fas & others) on Russian air weapons. You would then discover whole icebergs of information which you would never imagined to be true or even to exist.
You would among other things discover that the Sukoi 27/37 fighters are superior in performance to the american f-14/16, whilst being dramatically cheaper...
You would also find out who produces the world best air transports (an-124/225), amphibious aircraft(A-40). No point comparing these to anything since they got no genuine competitors.....
You would also find out about state-of-the-art attack helicopters(Mi-28/Ka-50 /52) which again there is no point comparing since they are unique in design....Aw also find out about the largest transport choppers(!)
Further, you will discover plenty of ammunition types, esspecially anti-ship where you'll find among other systems the SS-N-22/26 - with very weak countermeasures by the carrier group defences, not to mention they can be nuclear-armed...According to retired Rear Admiral Eric McVadon, the SS-N-22 is certainly enough to “make the 7th Fleet think twice” before venturing into hostile waters".
Check out the anti-sub Shkval missiles which have no counterpart or countermeasures in the US Navy, which makes it virtually impossible for a sub to evade the missile.
I must finally mention perhaps the greatest of all - the s-400 air defense system, which is to the Patriot what a sword is to a pocket-knife...
I must say I agree with you, the Russian Federation could not win a war against the US (unless nuclear, which is pointless). But that is only because it would be unable to occupy the US, just us the US could not occupy Russia. There certainly is a capability if not to destroy all the attacking forces, then at least to cause such destruction and casualties to force retreat.
In the field of air weapons the US is certainly not to Russia what Rome was to Germania, but when you fancy thinking of yourself as Romans, think how they ended up....
Also please when you mention the drinking problems, think for 2 seconds: in case of a conflict, would you rather have a soldier who enjoys drinking a bit too much, or someone who barely qualifies as a soldier because he's so overweight...Reflect on the fact that you may be lying on the sidewalk dead drunk one day, and run to battle the next, but if you weight 200 pounds today, where are you gonna run tomorrow?
Comments welcome (spare chauvinism), please study your case first.

Charles-Etienne Cauville
London, UK, Europe (sadly for some of you guys, its worth mentionning i guess)

I doubt Russia could attack itself... j/k


Seriously, Russia and the U.S. in a fight .. I doubt it would ever happen. Unless a mistake was to happen, like an accidental missile launch on one or the other...

or like on the West Wing last night... a meteor was coming in from space and the U.S. thought it was an incoming missile and almost launched..

Russia isnt prepping an attack, why would they launch at britain?
They have a fantastic irn bru trade going on , the largest 3 irn bru factories in the world there!
Also no one wants to hit the UK cause we have many secret weapons, england football fans, drunk NI , drunk scotsmen, the welsh.....well okey mabye not the welsh but they do sing good BTW.

Hi,

what do you know about aircraft??? about warfare??? not to mention about strategy in general...
I've been reading through some of your stuff, and you really blow my mind...
You look and think like a retired army instructor, who spent his life repeating to recruits that "the us are the best, we have the best weapons, we have the best planes, (...), we can beat up the crap out of the "Soviets" any time we want, with no effort if only they didn't have the nuclear weapons", and never looked in the case himself. I only wish you could realise the intense stupidity and chauvinism which your comments convey.
Every single one of your comments reflects deep ignorance of the thecnology you are talking about...go and look around on the web, and you'll discover that other countries besides the US make top-range weaponry.
For your information, the US only emerged as a great military power less than 65 years ago, and only became the best overall in the 1970, when the Soviet Union's economy could not follow the armament race. This does not however mean that every military equipment made in the US since 1970 is the best in its cathegory.
On the other hand, Russia emerged as a great milliary power in 1700, and maintains that status to this day, made outstanding millitary equipment since 1930, and continues to this day to surpass the US in some armament fields such air defense, despite relatively miserable funding.
Do you know why? Of course you dont...Its because since 1917 russian millitary was built in the aspiration of establishing a world-wide revolution, by force. And to fuel that ambition, millions of Russians have died in slave-like conditions, people worked for ideology and fear, and created with limited ressources outstanding weapons for their time, some of which still remain outstanding today.
Hope you learned something...

Charles-Etienne Cauville
London

PS: comparing Saddam's Iraq and todays Russia's weapons systems is honestly just pathetic - even for a school lad, not to mention a grown-up...

"The massive air, sea and land maneuvers are being conducted in the wake of America's stunning victory over Iraq..."

STUNNUNG VICTORY!!!! HAHA HA! LMAO!

Real reliable source

The original Newsmax article is nearly two years old. But then, most of you noticed that, right?

As a respectful American, i have to say i deeply respect the full capabilities of the Russian military. Although, i don't think a war is immenent with Russia anytime in the near future, It would not be a cake walk for the US to defeat the Russian army. My only point to project is this.
There is an image that the technology the US equips is the only reason they are what they are. I guarantee you this is a grave mistake. US soldiers have the hearts of lions and they are the true reasons that the US is what it is militarily. I deeply respect that other nations contain the same spirited soldiers, but don't let the high tech fool you. Behind the gun is warrior ready to rage. This stands true whether its a soldier with a gun. A tanker with armor. A pilot with a fighter jet. Or even a maintanence man with a wrench. And as far as the a nuclear or air threat is concerned, both countries have many secrets and weapons that really haven't been revealed. Who knows what secret weapons all this US military funding is going towards. Im sure Russia or any other great country has some good concepts, but i would bet my cards on the highly funded US secret goodies and concepts the most.

Originally posted by elevatedone
a meteor was coming in from space and the U.S. thought it was an incoming missile and almost launched..

This could be a future scenario involving any country with nuclear missiles. Sometimes these incoming space objects cause an explosion similar to nuclear ones on impact and could cause some confusion. Like the Tunguska event on June 30th, 1908... No warning, just a sudden big *BLAST!*

[edit on 2005/1/26 by Hellmutt]

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
In the event of a real (not manufactured) threat on the US, it is good to know the military track record and recent performance of the Commander In Chief, 'president' George W. Bush.

Years of exemplary service, all fully accounted for.

And excellent in response to actual physical manifestations of attack, as evidenced by his wise decision to continue reading to the children in order to avoid alarming them on 9/11.

I am very satisfied with that man being at the red button, and all the failsafe systems to prevent embarrassing blunders - including the professional intelligence provided by the CIA and OSP, and this administration's ability to critically, appropriately and objectively review their findings.

As a 'leader of the free world', they couldn't come any better.

But your boy Clinton, he really showed 'em, when he had the chance. That's right, the Clinton administration reviewed all the terror attacks on the U.S. during the 90's and gave us 9/11 due to their naive neglect.

And your other boy Kerry, he really showed us all.

Regarding the "formidable" Russian weapons, anyone remember the recent Kursk disaster?


[edit on 1/26/2005 by centurion1211]

Hello,

I dont believe in any way that there is likely to be a nuclear war, esspecially between the US and Russia, just to clarify...There are no forseable causes for such an event and I suppose I trust the world leaders enough to avoid that kind of scenario.

Regarding the special "american-soldier-spirit" which makes the US army what it is, not "gadgets":
I dont mean to constantly contradict you guys, but really there is nothing more special about the GI than any other soldier, besides the fact that he is far more costly than many colleagues: he is indeed better fed, got better training facilities, got condoms in his pack - but this does not make him psychologically any different. When in conflict, every army has its heroes and cowards, regardless of nationality. I dont believe that in severe combat the GI's morale is genuinly affected by the US-"we're the best" pumping and the extra expense the US government invests in him.
I think that in terms of determination the barefoot sunni insurgent with a half-loaded ak47 is as much or more motivated than the regular US GI. The thec, leadership, and organisation explains the difference in terms of result...

Regarding the Kursk accident as a mock of the "formidable" Russian weapons:
Cheap shot man enjoy the quality of your argument...Accidents happened in every army, especially on subs. This does not prove that the Kursk was a rusty old relic, as it was indeed superior to most of its counterparts in the US Navy.

Charles-Etienne Cauville
London

i might add that Russains think differently from how west thinks of things and actions etc etc like some other countrys maybe middle eastern ones also think an act differently from west.

2FAST4U

I deeply respect your thoughts on the American soldier. My post was not to state that the US soldier is in anyway best of the best of the best. It was to state that, they are soldiers with a will to fight just as much as any other soldier in any other country. Its not the gadgets that make the US soldier a fight, its the heart and will that they carry. They are fighters, not gadget caring machines, as some thing, because of western technology.
I think a US fighter has just as much drive to fight as an insergent with an AK47. Just because he doesn't believe in suicide and car bombings, doesn't mean he isn't as willing to protect his life, and fight for his cause. Anyhow, like i said i respect your thoughts and appreciate your response to my post, although my main point wasn't to ignorantly claim US soldiers as the best. IT was to open the mind of others who think of them as mindless machines caring out orders with no real soldier mentality.

Russia is "accidently" going to launch a nuke on dec 14 of the next 3 years.Not sure what year but bush is "supposedly" still in office.