War in Russia

[DGthe3]

As much as I want to keep talking about US vs Russia, this is supposed to be about Russia vs Georgia

[Beelzebubba]

Originally Posted by boxmonkeyracing

wow everyone is forgetting about the TU-160 black jack. . .(think B-1B on steroids). . .bigger, faster. . .better? first two are correct. . .better who knows they have stated they've broken our air space with out our knowledge with it but who knows if they really have and if we didn't really know about it.

The Russians say a lot of shit.

The MiG-25 was supposed to be superior to the F-15. They were highly confident of this 'fact'.

The Eagle remains undefeated in air to air combat. 100+ wins and zero losses. Many of those kills were MiG-25s.

You are correct about the TU-160 it is bigger and faster than the B-1. Smaller payload but with nukes that really doesn't matter. It's not stealthy.
Not like the B2. It's stealthier than a B-52 or Bear...sure. but not really a stealth bomber.

I remember reading that they only had like 10 operational Blackjacks I guess they'd only really need one though.

[boxmonkeyracing]

Originally Posted by Beelzebubba

The Russians say a lot of shit.

The MiG-25 was supposed to be superior to the F-15. They were highly confident of this 'fact'.

The Eagle remains undefeated in air to air combat. 100+ wins and zero losses. Many of those kills were MiG-25s.

You are correct about the TU-160 it is bigger and faster than the B-1. Smaller payload but with nukes that really doesn't matter. It's not stealthy.
Not like the B2. It's stealthier than a B-52 or Bear...sure. but not really a stealth bomber.

I remember reading that they only had like 10 operational Blackjacks I guess they'd only really need one though.

A b-1b isn't stealthy but TF you really don't need too much stealth. and in some cases it's better then stealth. if you can see a B-2 you can shoot it down. good luck in seeing a B-1b and it not being too late. that's all I'm saying. first hand knowledge of what they are capable of.

the 160 has TF ability and is faster then a B-1b. mission capable rates for the 160 have always been really really low. the 160 isn't as bad as you have made it out but I will say the B-1b is a whole lot better.

[Beelzebubba]

I wasn't disagreeing.

I'm just saying the Russians and all the people who buy their stuff talk a lot of smack about their capabilities.

Believe me. Until the 2006 Lebanon War, My M1 was viewed as inferior to the Merkava Mark IV and the T-80.

Some video gamers played 'such and such' game and the M1 was notoriously bad in it so in real life it must suck.

The only thing the Abrams sucks is fuel. Lots and lots of fuel. 1500 American horsepower worth of fuel.

The Russian RPG-29 will penetrate a Merkava's and a T-80/T-90's frontal armor. It damaged our armor but a buttoned up crew would survive a frontal or side armor hit and be able to eliminate the RPG grenadier.

[Wm Holden]

1500 hp...me like.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Beelzebubba

The Russians say a lot of shit.

It is politically notable that Russia is a very proud country with a long history of nationalistic tendencies. As a result, Russia will tend to portray itself on more equal footing with opponents than the truth.

At the same time, the US has similar nationalistic tendencies that tend to make Americans assume superiority in every category. While the US can be very confident that its military outspends and enemy, the same cockiness in war led to American independence from Britain's dominant forces in the past, albeit with the help of the French.

Basically, I'm just saying that the Russians have a lot of face to save since a complete government collapse in our lifetimes, so it isn't very surprising that Russia wants to stand out internationally as a world power.

[DGthe3]

This isn't from a major news group, but it is something

A fragile peace between Russia and Georgia seemed to be holding on Thursday even as explosions rocked the strategic Georgian town of Gori, and Moscow and Tbilisi traded accusations of ceasefire violations.
A Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman accused Russia of attempting to destroy Gori and the strategic Black Sea port of Poti, which are still under the control of the Russian military. A senior Russian commander said his armed forces aren't yet ready to give a date for their withdrawal from Georgian territory.
Meanwhile, rebel leaders from the Georgian province of South Ossetia said they intend to achieve full independence from Tbilisi. Russian President Dimitry Medvedev vowed that Moscow would act a guarantor of the security of South Ossetia and Abkhazia if they choose to become independent<more at link>.

at-a-glance-fragile-truce-in-russia-georgia-conflict

[mxkx250]

I heard on the news yesterday that Russua said that NATO nukes in Poland may cause war there. Sounds like they are getting bolder. Maybe the hardliners are deciding to revert to their old ways. After all, all these newer European democratic governments used to be in the USSR.

[Beelzebubba]

It's not NATO nukes that has the Russkies' panties in a bunch. It's the US missile defense net.

Vlad and his neo-commie buddies do not like the possibility that we might be able to shoot down their ballistic missiles.

I think that regardless of how our anti-missile tests went, we should have just said, "yep, it works 100%"
I mean why not? DPRK and Islamic Republic of Iran photoshop their missile test photos.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Beelzebubba

It's not NATO nukes that has the Russkies' panties in a bunch. It's the US missile defense net.

Vlad and his neo-commie buddies do not like the possibility that we might be able to shoot down their ballistic missiles.

I think that regardless of how our anti-missile tests went, we should have just said, "yep, it works 100%"
I mean why not? DPRK and Islamic Republic of Iran photoshop their missile test photos.

Remember that they are a power with priorities different than the US. They want to be sovereign and have a sphere of influence with neighboring regions. The US is stepping on Russian toes by introducing a missile defense net nowhere near American borders. Even if the intent of the net were to defend US allies, the net does not protect countries with hostile neighbors, like South Korea, Japan, Israel, or any of South America.

In other words, Russia wants to be able to act unilaterally without the US impeding Russian foreign affairs. As a sovereign nation, Russia has every right to be unhappy or even feel threatened by the US defense net.

On the note you made about claiming 100% accuracy, I just want to add that downplaying it's success rate may not be a bad thing. It allows the US to "need" more missile defense units overseas.

[Beelzebubba]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

... I just want to add that downplaying it's success rate may not be a bad thing. It allows the US to "need" more missile defense units overseas.

Good point. Didn't think of it that way.

[Wm Holden]

there is no spoon.

[Beelzebubba]

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Beelzebubba

It's not NATO nukes that has the Russkies' panties in a bunch. It's the US missile defense net.

Vlad and his neo-commie buddies do not like the possibility that we might be able to shoot down their ballistic missiles.

I think that regardless of how our anti-missile tests went, we should have just said, "yep, it works 100%"
I mean why not? DPRK and Islamic Republic of Iran photoshop their missile test photos.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time the US understated its capability

Originally Posted by The_Blur

Remember that they are a power with priorities different than the US. They want to be sovereign and have a sphere of influence with neighboring regions. The US is stepping on Russian toes by introducing a missile defense net nowhere near American borders. Even if the intent of the net were to defend US allies, the net does not protect countries with hostile neighbors, like South Korea, Japan, Israel, or any of South America.

In other words, Russia wants to be able to act unilaterally without the US impeding Russian foreign affairs. As a sovereign nation, Russia has every right to be unhappy or even feel threatened by the US defense net.

On the note you made about claiming 100% accuracy, I just want to add that downplaying it's success rate may not be a bad thing. It allows the US to "need" more missile defense units overseas.

Ah but it does. Even in Poland.
Huh?
On the surface that doesn't make any sense but in the grand scheme of things its a very clever move. The beauty of such a system is that it serves multiple purposes. The missile defense system can be deployed anywhere and it makes a huge political statement: "These are our friends, mess with them and you will be hurt badly". It can defend a nation against hostility, and if the other guy launches a first strike, that invites a retaliatory attack (I hope this never, ever happens). Those hostile nations are defenseless without a similar system in place. This keeps the hostile nations in check. If the bad guys are too afraid to strike, you can strike against them (if you need to) without fear.

Lots of assumptions in there of course.

Originally Posted by Wm Holden

there is no spoon.

Yes. Its all in the mind, like everything else in politics. All moves are symbolic, this is no different. As was the war in Georgia. Russia wants to reassert its power, and show that they are still a global player. Perception is more important than reality. That is why CNN is the most powerful organization in the world.