Russian Bombers Sighted...

[ExigeEvan]

Don't worry kids. Russia doesn't have enough money or people to start a war.

You realise that Russia is the second largest oil producing country in the world yeah? (Wikipedia figures put it at 12% of global total.) It also controls most of Germany's supply, who in turn are the home of many major US and British bases in mainland Europe.

You make it sound like it's even trivial to consider that Russia could fund a war, which I think is very naive.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

You realise that Russia is the second largest oil producing country in the world yeah? (Wikipedia figures put it at 12% of global total.) It also controls most of Germany's supply, who in turn are the home of many major US and British bases in mainland Europe.

You make it sound like it's even trivial to consider that Russia could fund a war, which I think is very naive.

From an American perspective, it's EXTREMELY unlikely that Russia could fund a war that spans oceans, without that war escalating to proportions that they wouldn't consider sustainable.

There's no doubt that they could find a way to fund a continental war - a short continental war that wouldn't depend on a strong supply chain, and blantantly ignores the nuclear aspect. Russia's problem is essentially the same as China's. Yes they may have resources (oil), but they don't really have the infrastructure to exploit it. They also may have a huge standing army, but don't have the means to deploy it for any length of time. Hitler had a similar outlook at the onset of WWII - he envisioned a quick campaign that would end in swift capitulation of his enemies. He found though that once things began to drag on, he couldn't hang in long enough due to a lack of exploitable resources. He'd captured plenty of resource lodes per se, but didn't have the capability to USE them. Russia, among Hitler's most-maligned victims, no doubt understands the lesson here.

The real threat from Russia isn't so much on the military front as it is on the economic and political front. Allow a foothold in those areas, and they may reach the point where the threat on a military front becomes more realistic.

 

[Danoff]

Among others, possibly yes. More so for sure than tinpot thug dictators who are attempting to extort us on a fairly limited scale by controlling the flow of a resource that, in the long term, is becoming obsolete.

But when a tinpot dictator blatantly defies his agreements with the US and spits in our face in front of all of those "bigger" problems, how are we to maintain the notion that we mean business if we don't enforce our agreements?

I'd argue that a tinpot dictator can do more damage to our credibility than any of those "bigger" problems.

The reconsolidation of the Soviet Union (Putin's goal) would be, in my view, a much greater threat on a much grander scale. It would introduce a strong presence of an idealogy (socialism) that I, and I think you, consider poisonous to humankind.

Russia is a loooooong way from becoming a real threat. And I don't think they'll get there with their current approach.

The real threat from Russia isn't so much on the military front as it is on the economic and political front. Allow a foothold in those areas, and they may reach the point where the threat on a military front becomes more realistic.

I don't think we should be preventing Russia from getting an economic foothold. That's a recipe for war and hatred rather than peace.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

I do believe we should enforce said agreements. I don't think the methods currently being used to do so are the right ones, especially when the justification for those methods is based on a (debatably) large-scale (deception/ignorance, pick your preference). Using the current methods is hurting our credibility far more so than the dictator could manage by simply breaking them.

I disagree that Russia is that far off from becoming a threat. China, a nation similar in ideology and breadth, not long ago was considered a relative nonentity on the world economic stage. In a matter of much less than a century, its progress has been staggering. Russia may not progress as quickly, but even if they don't, if a Communist state is in place when they DO reach that point, the threat will be real. In this case it seems like "an ounce of prevention".

I should have been more clear on the economic issue - I don't think we should prevent Russia from gaining a foothold period - that would indeed be evil. We should aim to prevent them from doing so at our expense and under an idealogy that destroys the individuality and will of its own people, denying them a fair shake at earning a share of that foothold.

 

[a6m5]

I also think that Russia is a lot closer to battle ready than many of you think. Chinese military is upgrading at a very scary rate, and Russians are starting to make headlines with their reinvestments as well. I'm starting to sense a pretty scary near-future for us.

So we shouldn't bother trying to defend ourselves right?

You probably gathered this from reading some parts of what I was saying. I have explained why the Russians are objecting to it. I'm Japanese(Japan is also an participant in this defense shield), and I live in the U.S. Why would I object to it? I feel that it's much needed, and we should've had this system in place a decade ago.

Because they don't have defensive measures, they have offensive measures, just like we do. I'd much rather that the US had the ability to actually prevent some destruction. These defensive measures aren't just for protecting America (perhaps not even MOSTLY for protecting America). They're to protect our allies from getting bombed as well - South Korea, Taiwan?

Nukes I guess on paper are offensive measures. From just about every experts I've read or heard, they have said that it's not about "using"(offense) these nukes. It's about possessing them(defensive).

 

[SolidSnake15]

Cold War II? But we haven't blown anything up yet!

 

[a6m5]

Cold War II? But we haven't blown anything up yet!

That's Cold War!

 

[SolidSnake15]

That's Cold War!

I mean we haven't blown up anything to cause the second Cold War.

 

[a6m5]

I mean we haven't blown up anything to cause the second Cold War.

Oh, OK..... maybe it was Iraq!

 

[SolidSnake15]

Oh, OK..... maybe it was Iraq!

Well we haven't blown them up physically. But we did completely destroy Iraq!

 

[Barracuda]

I also think that Russia is a lot closer to battle ready than many of you think. Chinese military is upgrading at a very scary rate, and Russians are starting to make headlines with their reinvestments as well. I'm starting to sense a pretty scary near-future for us.

Even if their military is upgrading they will never be able to match our military in such a short amount of time and with such little money. They may have a lot of people, but it doesn't much to take out thousands of people, even without nukes.

What could they build other than more nukes that could be of a threat to us. We've pretty much had air superiority since WWII, so I highly doubt they have the money or intelligence to build a fighter capable of beating the F-22 Raptor. Other than that, I cant think of anything else they could try to build to defeat us with, other than being stupid enough to actually launch a nuclear weapon.

Well we haven't blown them up physically. But we did completely destroy Iraq!

I know this sounds bad but there wasn't anything there to destroy in the first place.

 

[SolidSnake15]

I know this sounds bad but there wasn't anything there to destroy in the first place.

Well that is true... We destroyed the little bit of whatever they had.

 

[a6m5]

Even if their military is upgrading they will never be able to match our military in such a short amount of time and with such little money. They may have a lot of people, but it doesn't much to take out thousands of people, even without nukes.

What could they build other than more nukes that could be of a threat to us. We've pretty much had air superiority since WWII, so I highly doubt they have the money or intelligence to build a fighter capable of beating the F-22 Raptor. Other than that, I cant think of anything else they could try to build to defeat us with, other than being stupid enough to actually launch a nuclear weapon.



I know this sounds band but there wasn't anything there to destroy in the first place.

I don't think you particpated in a thread about the U.S.A against the rest of the world. It was from at least couple years back, but what I want to say is, you really understand the true power of the U.S. Military after going thru that thread, nobody will dipute your claim of the Russians being unable to match the military power of the U.S. That's not what I'm claiming at all.

And on the F-22, you are putting way too much importance on a fighter plane. What can they destroy us with? Try subs and carriers for starters.

 

[Venom800tt]

As much as I love fighter aircraft they don't exactly win wars... It is bombers and troops on the ground that do. And not only are the Japanese interested in our (the US) missile shield, but the UK as well. I also don't hear the Russians complaining about our more... mobile system deployed on AGIES equipped destroyers, which are capable of firing anti-ballistic missile Standard Missile 3's. A ship can go anywhere where there is water to protect against ballistic missiles. Now if I recall correctly the ABM system system we want to deploy in Europe is a the Patriot PAC3, which is a short range defensive system, which can only handle smaller short range ballistic missiles. Stuff like SCUD's and such.

 

[a6m5]

As much as I love fighter aircraft they don't exactly win wars... It is bombers and troops on the ground that do. And not only are the Japanese interested in our (the US) missile shield, but the UK as well. I also don't hear the Russians complaining about our more... mobile system deployed on AGIES equipped destroyers, which are capable of firing anti-ballistic missile Standard Missile 3's. A ship can go anywhere where there is water to protect against ballistic missiles. Now if I recall correctly the ABM system system we want to deploy in Europe is a the Patriot PAC3, which is a short range defensive system, which can only handle smaller short range ballistic missiles. Stuff like SCUD's and such.

I think the missile shield does involve Aegis equipped vessels. At least the Japanese were ready to use theirs as part of the shield, I have read that somewhere.

One of the reasons I don't trust this shield system completely is the deployment of the Patriots. From what I understand, their track record isn't exactly great.

 

[Venom800tt]

I think the missile shield does involve Aegis equipped vessels. At least the Japanese were ready to use theirs as part of the shield, I have read that somewhere.

One of the reasons I don't trust this shield system completely is the deployment of the Patriots. From what I understand, their track record isn't exactly great.

Patriot is OK, not that great though. You can think of the Patriot as a last ditch effort. From what I have seen the SM3 system on Aegis vessels is far more accurate, but then the SM series missiles have been pretty much perfected, since the basic design has been around since the late 1960's. Speaking of the SM3 and Aegis system the Japanese have recently done a successful test of it against a target missile. Hmm, all this talk of weapons and aircraft makes me want post some of my madness ideas, 3d models, and drawings somewhere around here...

 

[Sureboss]

I also think that Russia is a lot closer to battle ready than many of you think. Chinese military is upgrading at a very scary rate, and Russians are starting to make headlines with their reinvestments as well. I'm starting to sense a pretty scary near-future for us.

You probably gathered this from reading some parts of what I was saying. I have explained why the Russians are objecting to it. I'm Japanese(Japan is also an participant in this defense shield), and I live in the U.S. Why would I object to it? I feel that it's much needed, and we should've had this system in place a decade ago.


Nukes I guess on paper are offensive measures. From just about every experts I've read or heard, they have said that it's not about "using"(offense) these nukes. It's about possessing them(defensive).

There's a reason why American doesn't want Iran to get the nuclear weapon. For me it's due to the fact that America knows it will have to negotiate with them when they get to that stage, like N. Korea.

As my Science teacher has pointed out, imagine if the Nazi's had got the technology that Einstein knew (about Nukes) and used it, just how different would the world be?

 

[Alfaholic]

But when a tinpot dictator blatantly defies his agreements with the US and spits in our face in front of all of those "bigger" problems, how are we to maintain the notion that we mean business if we don't enforce our agreements?

Isn't that what Putin's doing by buzzing US carriers? Except without the part where he actually shoots at anyone?

I don't think we should be preventing Russia from getting an economic foothold. That's a recipe for war and hatred rather than peace.

I completely agree.

 

[Danoff]

Isn't that what Putin's doing by buzzing US carriers? Except without the part where he actually shoots at anyone?

Well, that's a bit of saber rattling. But sometimes the message just doesn't get across. We eventually tried that technique with Iraq several different ways, and even told them exactly when we'd invade (putting our troops at risk) in hopes that they would meet our demands.

 

[YSSMAN]

You make it sound like it's even trivial to consider that Russia could fund a war, which I think is very naive.

Don't get me wrong, both Russia and China are as much of a threat as any other country in the world, but much like CLS had said; They don't have the stuff to do a full-scale war to come anywhere close to making a dent on North America.

I mean, lets just do the simple math:

- Russia fires on American vessels
- Russia/US declare war
- Russia vs US/NATO Powers/SEATO Powers vs Chinese "wildcard"

Personally speaking, the economic and military power behind the Allied powers would be far too vast for Russia (or China) to come anywhere close to starting something with the United States any time soon. There are reasons why NATO (and the like) exist, to keep their power at bay. While they do have some of the money to fund a war, it is also important to point out that much of the capital in that country is controlled by outside investment as well. Pull the right strings, and Russia collapses in upon itself.

...Match that with an otherwise moderately equipped and trained military (several outstanding pieces of machinery included), and yeah, its a matter of throwing men at the problem. Something even the Chinese have realized won't work against the United States (see their battle plans over Taiwan)...

Sure, I'd be worried if Russia or China wanted to start a war with us. But they're not stupid enough to do it. I've done a fair bit of research on Russian and Chinese military power in my years to know that the only thing we have to worry about are nuclear weapons, because outside of that, Allied equipment and servicemen are far better off than their Russo-Chinese counterparts.

===

Which reminds me: Tom Clancy's END WAR comes out soon, should be fun to throw the US/EU against Russia in the game! Or is it US vs EU vs Russia? It gets confusing sometimes...

 

[Blackbird.]

Though addmittadley, that's pretty ballsy flying over a US carrier.

I'd have to agree.