Possible war between USA and Russia/China

You don't have to be planning an attack to be prepared for a response, which is what those troops stationed at the border were to do.

If there were troops stationed at the border ready for a conflict the Georgian forces would never have made it to the South Ossetian capital.
The only troops on Russian borders are border patrol... FSB and MVD troops... not 58th Army units, which was the force that was mobilised by the Georgian attack that went into South Ossetia and Abkhazia and later into Georgian territory.
The 58th Army group is made up of soldiers from the region... ie North Ossetia and the Caucus region and they had been demobilised 8 days before the attack.

You can't upgrade that plane to fly at speeds fast enough to escape a Buk, thus, UAVs are the simpler, cheaper, and more effective solution.

A properly upgraded Tu-22MR would have detected the presence of a modern air defence network and could have used its missiles to destroy any radars that were operating. Without external radars operating the BUK would have had to have turned on its own radars and revealed itself, or operated in optical mode only.

The Tu-22MR can operate above the 15,000m ceiling of the low to medium altitude BUK system.

UAV would just be shot down and return nice footage of missiles closing in and then killing them... not really much use at all.

Well, when they do get shot down, which is what usually happens, you send in low-flying helicopters or attack-aircraft like Su-25s. Of course, they get shot down too, so why not send in Tu-160s to carry masses of Kh-31Ps? What happens if that gets shot down? Well, send in an Army brigade to knock out the defenses, without air cover of course.

No you do what they eventually did and find an Mi-9 tactical jammer and send it in with the low flying aircraft and send in an up to date Tu-22MR. Any radar that turns on is destroyed with anti radiation missiles launched from the Tu-22MR while the Mi-9 jams everything except the IR guided weapons.

Bottom line is that a UAV is expendable while a Tu-22 w/ Pilots is not.

Not many UAVs able to perform SEAD. Makes mores sense to use a combination of SEAD aircraft and UAV. Ideally an Su-34 should have been used... and according to rumour was used to jam the air defence while it was dealt with.

The thing is that I care about Russian's lives and if you did too you'd agree that if Russia had UAVs those damn Tu-22 pilots wouldn't have been killed forcing another family at home to bitch and moan. Maybe if you were just more passionate about the Russian Military you'd see where I'm coming from.

Your feelings for Russian personnel extends to you caring about their family bitching and moaning?... then I can see why you think they need UAVs.
The reality is that war is war and when you are surprised you use what is on site at the time.

But it does make your pilots safer, you don't want to make Russia become a Germany, have all your good pilots get shot down in the first few and then have your noobs fly your Sukhois and make them look like flying bags of crap.

UAVs make your pilots totally safe, but UAVs flown without proper situational awareness are targets.

So I wouldn't know why you're saying that the U.S. designed GPS, because we really just invented it but our GPS is called NAVSTAR (which has a full constellation unlike GLONASS.)

Hahahahahaha... yeah, navstar was not the first sat nav system by a very long shot.

Because with a less maneuverable platform you can't adjust your platform accordingly to where the GPS says the target is.

As I said its manoeuvrability will determine its release parameters, so if it comes off the pylon it should hit the target.

For example, Russia has been doing as much as it can to protect it's Energy monopoly on Europe.

Like what?

Not to mention that Defense wise, Russia is expanding their borders by continually establishing a presence in all theaters of the world (something Superpowers are akin to.)

Very true... if you change the word Russia for NATO.

Precisely, Russia has our balls in their hands but once we switch to Clean energy, Russia knows they're going back to where they were in the 1700's, that backwards country to the East.

First of all that is rubbish. Russia is not putting any pressure on Europe over energy... in fact they are spending billions and jumping through hoops to provide alternative routes for the gas.
At the end of the day Europe can choose at any time not to buy Russian gas. They choose to do so because the alternatives will cost them more and they are cheap.

You're confusing market forces with Government again.

I am talking about unregulated markets where the market regulates itself. Anarchy without government control.

And you have a problem with that how? Or are you a supporter of terror?

I don't need 500 choices of soap... it is a waste of my time and their effort.

It is true that most Poor people got there by their sheer stupidity and laziness so I don't understand why we should follow a Nordic model and become neo-socialists.

Hahahaha... you are funny.

And yet a single piece of evidence. You know, if you're just going to post Conspirator propaganda then why do we have these overly long discussions in the first place?

Of course. The footage of cages in the open with people in chains and blindfolded on CNN was all made up. Hilarious. I am sure when they come for the Jews you will be able to justify it too... then the asians and the arabs and the blacks... then it will be your turn to go to the nice big brick buildings...

IronsightSniper wrote:And you have a problem with that how? Or are you a supporter of terror?

It is true that most Poor people got there by their sheer stupidity and laziness so I don't understand why we should follow a Nordic model and become neo-socialists.

And yet a single piece of evidence. You know, if you're just going to post Conspirator propaganda then why do we have these overly long discussions in the first place?

Now I don't know where does these comments come from. - arrogance, ignorance or weakness.

You can't upgrade that plane to fly at speeds fast enough to escape a Buk, thus, UAVs are the simpler, cheaper, and more effective solution.

A properly upgraded Tu-22MR would have detected the presence of a modern air defence network and could have used its missiles to destroy any radars that were operating. Without external radars operating the BUK would have had to have turned on its own radars and revealed itself, or operated in optical mode only.

The Tu-22MR can operate above the 15,000m ceiling of the low to medium altitude BUK system.

UAV would just be shot down and return nice footage of missiles closing in and then killing them... not really much use at all.

Of course, you have to think about economics. It is still cheaper to send in UAVs to act as recon, and then use Tu-22s as Killers in that Hunter-Killer team, instead of just using Tu-22s for both parts and having one get shot down and killing your pilots.

Well, when they do get shot down, which is what usually happens, you send in low-flying helicopters or attack-aircraft like Su-25s. Of course, they get shot down too, so why not send in Tu-160s to carry masses of Kh-31Ps? What happens if that gets shot down? Well, send in an Army brigade to knock out the defenses, without air cover of course.

No you do what they eventually did and find an Mi-9 tactical jammer and send it in with the low flying aircraft and send in an up to date Tu-22MR. Any radar that turns on is destroyed with anti radiation missiles launched from the Tu-22MR while the Mi-9 jams everything except the IR guided weapons.

Which is where those MANPADs came in, friendly or not, and whacked a few Su-25s.

Bottom line is that a UAV is expendable while a Tu-22 w/ Pilots is not.

Not many UAVs able to perform SEAD. Makes mores sense to use a combination of SEAD aircraft and UAV. Ideally an Su-34 should have been used... and according to rumour was used to jam the air defence while it was dealt with.

That Tu-22 wasn't a SEAD aircraft it was recon, and guess what happened to it?

The thing is that I care about Russian's lives and if you did too you'd agree that if Russia had UAVs those damn Tu-22 pilots wouldn't have been killed forcing another family at home to bitch and moan. Maybe if you were just more passionate about the Russian Military you'd see where I'm coming from.

Your feelings for Russian personnel extends to you caring about their family bitching and moaning?... then I can see why you think they need UAVs.
The reality is that war is war and when you are surprised you use what is on site at the time.

Of course, because Russia didn't have a mass of UAVs, those pilots died.

But it does make your pilots safer, you don't want to make Russia become a Germany, have all your good pilots get shot down in the first few and then have your noobs fly your Sukhois and make them look like flying bags of crap.

UAVs make your pilots totally safe, but UAVs flown without proper situational awareness are targets.

Those who send in UAVs alone are targets.

So I wouldn't know why you're saying that the U.S. designed GPS, because we really just invented it but our GPS is called NAVSTAR (which has a full constellation unlike GLONASS.)

Hahahahahaha... yeah, navstar was not the first sat nav system by a very long shot.

It was the first full constellation, which is really the only useful configuration for Navigational satellites. Until Russia gets a full constellation, GLONASS is still Economy class while NAVSTAR is first class.

Because with a less maneuverable platform you can't adjust your platform accordingly to where the GPS says the target is.

As I said its manoeuvrability will determine its release parameters, so if it comes off the pylon it should hit the target.

Unless it's guidance system isn't at it's tip-top, which is where GLONASS isn't.

For example, Russia has been doing as much as it can to protect it's Energy monopoly on Europe.

Like what?

SO.

Not to mention that Defense wise, Russia is expanding their borders by continually establishing a presence in all theaters of the world (something Superpowers are akin to.)

Very true... if you change the word Russia for NATO.

And still quite true for Russia too. It's kinda obvious that anyone of European descent has Imperialistic ambitions, including Russians.

Precisely, Russia has our balls in their hands but once we switch to Clean energy, Russia knows they're going back to where they were in the 1700's, that backwards country to the East.

First of all that is rubbish. Russia is not putting any pressure on Europe over energy... in fact they are spending billions and jumping through hoops to provide alternative routes for the gas.
At the end of the day Europe can choose at any time not to buy Russian gas. They choose to do so because the alternatives will cost them more and they are cheap.

Quote the Capitalist. Of course Europe will buy from Russia, it goes through pipes, whilst other sources are farther away and thus transportation costs. Second of all, that is not garbage. Russia knows full well that when the customer who buys most of your dark stuff is a valuable asset, something Russia depends on.

You're confusing market forces with Government again.

I am talking about unregulated markets where the market regulates itself. Anarchy without government control.

Anarchy with Government is chaos.

And you have a problem with that how? Or are you a supporter of terror?

I don't need 500 choices of soap... it is a waste of my time and their effort.

Precisely, you need only 1 choice of soap, Economic Darwinism here.

It is true that most Poor people got there by their sheer stupidity and laziness so I don't understand why we should follow a Nordic model and become neo-socialists.

Hahahaha... you are funny.

Thanks for supporting my point.

And yet a single piece of evidence. You know, if you're just going to post Conspirator propaganda then why do we have these overly long discussions in the first place?

Of course. The footage of cages in the open with people in chains and blindfolded on CNN was all made up. Hilarious. I am sure when they come for the Jews you will be able to justify it too... then the asians and the arabs and the blacks... then it will be your turn to go to the nice big brick buildings...

And you think that 1 example is proof to all? Please leave your discriminating mind somewhere else.

Of course, you have to think about economics. It is still cheaper to send in UAVs to act as recon, and then use Tu-22s as Killers in that Hunter-Killer team, instead of just using Tu-22s for both parts and having one get shot down and killing your pilots.

Economics certainly come in to it, but at the end of the day expecting to not lose personnel... even in an unprovoked attack is a little unrealistic.

At the end of the day a surprise attack is a surprise attack... I mean where were the F-22s when airliners were crashing into targets in 11/9?

It is a little silly to look back and say... well a lock on a cockpit door could have saved just under 3,000 lives that day... what a waste for the cost of a strengthened door and a lock.

Well you know airlines took that experience and now they do have strengthened doors and locks... and what do you know the Russian AF has bought Israeli UAVs and is spending more money on getting more.

Which is where those MANPADs came in, friendly or not, and whacked a few Su-25s.

Indeed they did... and for the modest cost of a few smashed engines and an estimated 2-3 aircraft shot down they turned the tide of the conflict and sent the enemy into a massive retreat.

A UAV overhead would not have the same effect. A meeting engagement of ground forces would have resulted in more than 2-3 men missing.

That Tu-22 wasn't a SEAD aircraft it was recon, and guess what happened to it?

The Tu-22MR is Elint and the Kh-22M missiles it carries are... ARMs. It doesn't fly over territory and take pictures... it listens for radars and radio traffic and locates emitters... and when it finds SAM battery Radars or HQ or Comm centres it launches missiles at them... its problem was that the BUK system was operating radar silent and was getting data from the AD network... when the Backfire was in range they turned on and launched and shot it down.

The problem was not sending the Tu-22MR, the problem was that they sent it alone without jammer support.

When targetted and fired upon the BUK battery was probably too close to launch a Kh-22M at it.

Remember that unlike the previous KUB battery the BUK has target tracking radars on every launch vehicle... so taking out the search radar would not take out the battery.

Of course, because Russia didn't have a mass of UAVs, those pilots died.

How many pilots died? AFAIK three of the four crew on the Tu-22MR were captured and returned after the conflict.

Those who send in UAVs alone are targets.

So UAVs need to be sent in with manned aircraft?
Doesn't that negate the point of UAVs?

It was the first full constellation, which is really the only useful configuration for Navigational satellites. Until Russia gets a full constellation, GLONASS is still Economy class while NAVSTAR is first class.

Actually there is another global positioning system that has been used for thousands of years... the elements of which are almost 14 billion years old...
And the tests with Brahmos showed that GLONASS is currently good enough.

In actual fact freely available Navstar GPS can actually be made more accurate with the combination of GLONASS and Navstar receiver chips and a bit of maths.

Unless it's guidance system isn't at it's tip-top, which is where GLONASS isn't.

Navstar signals are no where near as accurate for civilian use as for military use so Navstar has the same problems.

Either way there are no munitions with CEP of 1mm but then there are no munitions that require that level of accuracy.

SO.

?
You mean South Ossetia?
There is no oil in SO. There are no Georgian pipelines anywhere near SO. Even if you add SO and Abkhazia you still couldn't put a pipeline between the Caspian sea and the Black Sea... and even if you could why bother? Russia already has easy access to the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea.

And still quite true for Russia too. It's kinda obvious that anyone of European descent has Imperialistic ambitions, including Russians.

NATO works in the sentence because in the last 20 Years it has pretty much expanded to now include pretty much all the Warsaw Pact countries, and also a few former Soviet republics.

How exactly does Russia fit into that sentence?

Of course Europe will buy from Russia, it goes through pipes, whilst other sources are farther away and thus transportation costs.

That is not a Russian monopoly, that is Europe being too cheap to spend more on energy.

Second of all, that is not garbage. Russia knows full well that when the customer who buys most of your dark stuff is a valuable asset, something Russia depends on.

So Russia depends on Europe buying Russian gas. How does that give imperial Russia power over Europe?

Sounds like the opposite of what you are suggesting because in most conferences since the Ukraine interfered with European gas supplies the Europeans have been discussing ways of developing alternative energy supplies... it is clearly Europe that is using energy as a weapon.

Anarchy with Government is chaos.

Effective real Government is order and law, so applying real government to Anarchy leads not to Chaos but to order.

Somalia is a case in point. Ineffectual government = anarchy.
Afghanistan. Ineffectual government = country ruled by warlords = anarchy.

Precisely, you need only 1 choice of soap, Economic Darwinism here.

No, you need 2 otherwise it is not a choice.

Thanks for supporting my point.

Economics are not linked to intelligence.
Bill Gates is a very wealthy man, but he is no Einstein. He simply made a few business choices that earned him a very large amount of money. He then used that money to make more.
Luck, chance, opportunity, and already having money are just as important... if not more so than intelligence in whether you are wealthy or not.
Or do you actually think life is "fair".

Reminds me of a story about a kid that wanted a new bike. He prayed and prayed and prayed for one and he didn't get one... till he realised how religion really worked.

He went out and stole the bike he wanted and then prayed for forgiveness.

It is all about choices. I don't steal... not because it is a rule or because of religion, but because of the consequences if I get caught.
Real life is all about choices and the choices you make always lead to consequences for you and those around you.
You can never make mistakes... simply by not living your life and making choices.
We never fully know what the consequences of our actions are until they happen and it all plays out.
One time you can fire a gun in your house because you didn't realise it was loaded and apart from a hole in the wall nothing else happens.
One time you can decide to turn left instead of right at an intersection and a child runs out in front of you chasing a ball and you kill them with your car.
It is nothing to do with intelligence, and there often is little or no tangible reward for doing the right thing.

And you think that 1 example is proof to all? Please leave your discriminating mind somewhere else.

It was Guantanimo Bay... a military base. The military would have had complete control of what CNN could see and film so I very much expect that the large group of men in cages were the lucky ones being treated the best... yet even this example violates the American definition of human rights.

But these guys are terrorists!

Well the guys Stalin had in the Gulags were too.

The people China puts in prison for political reason are terrorists too.

If you want to call those Chinese and soviet prisoners dissidents then those kidnapped from their native countries and illegally transported to US leased territory in Cuba are dissidents too... except those Soviet and Chinese dissidents weren't kidnapped and taken to foreign countries and tortured.

I think about this every time a US official goes to China and starts press conferences by criticising Chinas human rights record.

They don't care about the people in Guantanimo why would they care about Chinese people in Chinese prisons? ...they don't.

It is their way of saying... you are a heathen with a culture thousands and thousands of years older than ours but we hide our crimes better than you do so listen to us.

Back in the early 60's, many "pundits" predicted the U.S. would defeat North Vietnam in 90 days. Fast Forward. After 10 years of fighting, 58,000 U.S. servicemen killed, over 2,000 aircrafts shot down, and about 550 airmen held as POWs, the U.S. gave up and retreated from Vietnam. It was the first loss in a foreign war for the U.S. Most of N. Vietnam success can be attributed to Russian weapons and training. The following weapons achieved legendary status in that war: AK-47 assault rifle, ZSU quad 23mm radar-guided AAA, and the MiG-21.

N. Vietnam produced 16 combat aces ( 5 kills or more in air-to-air combat) flying MiG-21.

Most of the 2,000 plus aircraft losses were shot down by the ZSU 23mm AAA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War

You look at Hollywoods depiction of war as being romantic and an adventure and you start to understand why some in the US love movies like Red Dawn depicting an invasion of the US.

It is a chance to escape boring ordinary lives and become heroes.

The only problem is that real war is no movie or game, and even when you win like the Communist Vietnamese, there is suffering for years to come from unexploded ordinance (UXO), not to mention the chemical and other contamination of the land and water and air.

The fact that most of your young male population has been wiped out for a few generations leaving children and old men and women to deal with the ruined infrastructure.

I am sure the most of the living and almost all the dead would have prefered it never happened.

For the Soviets WWII was devastating to their population, their economy, and country... I am sure they would happily trade with the US the invasion of their country in the 1940s.

I don't know about you, but Hollywood churns out a lot of "everyone dies" movies about war nowadays.

To be honest I haven't been to the Pictures for a while now, and I am not really a movie renter either.

I see with the latest entry of Call of Duty that the Russians are invading the US again.

I thought the Battlefield 2 scenario of the US invading China was far more realistic.

during the 1980's there were many war or nuclear catastrophe movies made. IIRC, in the movie, Damnation Alley, the only city in the U.S. that survive intact after a nuclear war was Albany, New York.
At that time, the Soviet Union had 40,000 (low conservative estimate) nuclear weapons in inventory.

This is how the 40,000 count of nuclear warheads was determined. During the fall of the Soviet Union(1990's), the U.S. offer Russia 20,000 special canisters to secured and stored their nuclear warheads. The Russian agree to the deal, but requested 40,000 canisters to complete the job.

In the event that folks in Russia were unaware, America's nuclear arsenal is VERY old. The Peacekeeper missiles (which were armed with 10 MIRV) have all been retired and decommissioned as of 2005. These were the most advanced land-based ICBMs in the American arsenal. They entered production/service in 1986 and they were fairly advanced and remained relatively advanced throughout the 1990s.


At the present time America's ONLY land-based ICBMs are of the Minuteman III class, which entered production and service in 1970... Yes, you read that right, 1970...

America's land based ICBMs are all centered around a design that is 42 years old, with most of the missiles being at least 30-40 years old in terms of their physical age. The production ran from 1970 until 1978 so the youngest Minuteman III would be 34 years old (made in 1978).


Unless I am massively mistaken, Russia and China have been commissioning new classes of missiles, much more advanced types of missiles, and building new missiles that are much younger than anything America has or is likely to have in the near future.

Russia has new and advanced road mobile ICBMs, as does China, missiles that were designed in the late 1990s early 2000s and that entered production as recently as 2005. The missiles are more advanced, based on more recent/newer technology, and they are physically younger than the aging and outdated American missiles.


Obviously I am hoping that no matter what happens the world can avoid any sort of nuclear war/nuclear exchange. I don't want to see Russia and America or Russia and anybody or America and anybody wind up in a nuclear exchange/war. However, it seems odd to me that Russia is apparently on a spending spree with nuclear weapons when they have yet to modernize their ground forces in regards to acquiring sufficient numbers of the BTR-90s, BMP-3s, T-90s, etc. It is highly unlikely they will be in a situation where they have to use nuclear weapons, but they seem to have had numerous instances where more of the advanced armored vehicles would have been helpful (Chechnya, Georgia, etc).


Do Russians feel that nuclear war is inevitable? Are they worried and concerned that America may want to start a nuclear war?



I snagged this clip from another site-


http://www.jrnyquist.com/war_preps.htm


USA war preparations

No civil defense.

No national missile defense.

No road or rail-mobile ICBMs.

Abandonment of the Panama Canal.

U.S. officials have allowed nuclear warhead secrets to leak out to China.

The U.S. pays Russia billions of dollars to encourage disarmament measures, but these billions are diverted to Russian war preparations.

The U.S. Navy is short of fuel.

The U.S. Army is short of recruits and officers, and has only 10 divisions, with 8 of them unfit for combat.

The U.S. Air Force is facing pilot shortages, and many aircraft remain grounded for lack of spare parts.

Only 18 ballistic missile submarines remain in the U.S. Navy, with only 9 at sea on any given day.

America's ballistic missile submarine commanders no longer have the launch codes to fire their nuclear weapons, but must rely on the president to send them the launch codes in the event of a war emergency.

Shop until you drop.

Wave good-bye to your country.

Say hello to your new landlord, Mr. Wang.




Russian war preparations

Moscow has outfitted hundreds of fighter-bombers with additional fuel tanks and in-flight refueling capability, augmenting Russia's intercontinental strike capability.

Russia has been constructing large numbers of military transport aircraft for foreign customers who do not exist.

Russia has been building and accumulating dry docks even though, at the moment, no foreign customers for them exist.

Russia has recently fielded a new battle tank; a new state-of-the-art fighter; super-quiet submarines which can engage sea, land and air targets simultaneously; a new attack helicopter and sniper rifle.

Russia has developed a revolutionary new rifle-fired infantry weapon, the so-called vacuum grenade, which can give a single Russian soldier the firepower of a 155mm howitzer. Russia has begun joint production of this weapon with the Chinese.

Russia now emphasizes the production of mobile ICBMs like the Topol-M, which are designed to evade satellite detection, permitting the Russians to cheat on arms control agreements.

Russia continues to develop biological and chemical weapons, sometimes with the use of U.S. funds. According to recent defectors, Russia is now working on a super-plague weapon.

Russian diplomacy is clearly attempting to build an anti-American alliance which includes countries like China, North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Libya, South Africa, Syria, Venezuela, Vietnam, Iran and India.

Russian Spetsnaz commandos continue to train with suitcase nukes against U.S. targets.

Russia is hoarding strategic metals which are vital for keeping up war production through the first months of a nuclear world war.

Russia is importing more food than needed for domestic consumption. At the same time, Russia has constructed huge underground nuclear-proof food storage facilities.

Russia has developed an impressive engineering rescue capability, organized into special military formations positioned outside large cities, for rescuing citizens trapped beneath rubble in the event of a nuclear attack.

Recent Russian movies and pop songs depict Americans as stupid animals who deserve to die. In keeping with this theme, NATO is depicted as an aggressive alliance, sometimes likened to Hitler's Third Reich.

Russia is building huge underground cities, like the one at Yamantau Mountain in the Urals. These cities are built more than a thousand feet into the earth and are able to withstand direct nuclear attack.

Russia has been modernizing nuclear bunkers located beneath Moscow.

Russia has erected a system of national missile defense far beyond that allowed by the 1972 ABM Treaty. Deploying approximately 10,000 dual-purpose mobile SAM/ABMs, Russia has used a loophole in the treaty to provide a powerful missile shield. Using a common-sense approach to ABM defense, Russia's interceptor missiles employ special nuclear warheads that can destroy incoming warheads without having to score a direct head-on hit.

Russia is also ahead of the United States in directed energy weapons that could be used to blind or destroy U.S. early warning satellites.

Many of Russia's mafia organizations operate in collaboration with, or under the supervision of, military intelligence and the state security services. Organized crime is used to penetrate Western banks, technology companies, law enforcement and government. Routes used for smuggling drugs and other contraband are reserved in wartime for bringing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons into the U.S.


Chinese war preparations

Civil defense drills began in major Chinese cities around July 2000.

Chinese military commanders have been told that nuclear war with America could begin at any time.

China has been developing and deploying new road-mobile long range missiles like the DF-31 and DF-41.

China is modernizing its navy, purchasing advanced Russian warships and missiles capable of sinking U.S. carriers.

China has been rapidly building a large store of advanced nuclear warheads.

China has positioned bases to block the main western entry point into the Pacific, and has acquired indirect control of the Panama Canal through front companies.

China has formed military ties with Cuba and Venezuela.

China has also penetrated Sudan, and is spreading missile and nuclear technology to rogue states in Africa and the Middle East.

China has massed troops, aircraft, ships and missiles opposite Taiwan.

China has engaged in war exercises during which U.S. forces in the Pacific were targeted by Chinese forces.

Don't mean to sound rude, but are of those claims about Russia and China backed by reliable sources? Some of them sound laughable, and some appear to be figments of imagination.

Example "Russian Spetsnaz commandos continue to train with suitcase nukes against U.S. targets." Now even if they did, they wouldn't exactly go around telling everybody they see about it, would they?

The amusing thing is that most of the cold war propaganda where the US accuses the Soviets of doing something bad is most often because they are doing the exact same thing to them but if they accuse the Soviets of doing it when it is revealed that the US did it too they can claim they only did it because the Soviets did it first (or were on record as being accused of doing it first).

The clear leader of the Cold war for the most part was the US and the Soviets merely reacted.

Case in point the Soviets put intermediate range nuclear missiles in Cuba... bad soviets... but then the only reason they actually did that was because the US put jupiter IRBMs in Turkey just the width of the Black Sea from Moscow first... evil soviets...

The US was happy to inject its own citizens with plutonium to determine the effects, and regularly released viruses and monitored hospitals to determine the spread and speed of viral epidemics in US cities.

The people injected with Plutonium obviously died and who knows how many other people died because hospitals were so busy with patients infected on purpose they didn't have the capacity to treat those who were not infected by the US Government.

I think the funniest thing about the evil reds under the bed theory about China is that they ignore the fact that China owns US debt to such a degree if they really hated the US they could simply demand repayment which would bankrupt the US over night. Of course it would mean the US debt the Chinese owned would become worthless with a bankrupt US.

Very simply... the US has let its ICBMs go a little, though it has kept them maintained and upgraded they are not the strongest leg of the US nuclear triad. The US has invested rather more in its air delivered and sub components and it shows.

However, it seems odd to me that Russia is apparently on a spending spree with nuclear weapons when they have yet to modernize their ground forces in regards to acquiring sufficient numbers of the BTR-90s, BMP-3s, T-90s, etc.

They replaced most of their Soviet era ICBMs because most were made or had parts made in the Ukraine and Belarus. The rush to make new missiles is actually a rush to get all Russian missiles into service.

The reason BTR-90 and BMP-3 and T-90s have not been bought in bulk is because they changed their doctrine and now have plans for all new vehicles based on 4 different chassis called Armata, Kurganets-25, Boomerang-25 and Boomerang-10. The Armata will be a tank weight/mobility/protection/firepower vehicle family so every vehicle in a heavy tank or motorrifle brigade will be on a Armata chassis including the tank, IFV, air defence vehicle, SPH, engineer vehicle, etc etc etc. In a medium brigade all the vehicles will either be a Kurganets-25 or a Boomerang-25 vehicles... both of which will be amphibious 25 ton class vehicles the K being tracked and the Boomerang being wheeled. The light brigades will be all boomerang-10 vehicles in the 10 ton weight class though ranging up to about 16-17 tons. This means a light brigade logistics tail has spares and support equipment for the Boomerang-10 vehicle family. The electronics and systems in the Armata tank vehicle will be the same as the electronics and systems in the other vehicle families tank vehicle though the boomerang-10 might not carry a 125mm gun... but then again it might because a 6 wheeled 17 ton vehicle is not that much different from Sprut at 18 tons...

The lack of rush to upgrade the Russian conventional military is that most of the new stuff is not ready yet and will start production in 2015 or so.

Do Russians feel that nuclear war is inevitable? Are they worried and concerned that America may want to start a nuclear war?

No. They know a nuclear war is not inevitable, but they also know that the west has made a lot of verbal promises it has not kept and it also knows that the best system we know of so far is MAD.

Russia is not complaining about US ABM systems all over the place because they want to be able to nuke the US... they are complaining about the US ABM systems all over the place because they know it upsets MAD. If one side ends up with a shield to stop ballistic missiles they might start to think they could get away with a small clean surgical war that risks little and offers great returns.

Russia is not afraid they wont get to use their nukes... they are afraid the US will push them into a corner and force them to use them... the fact that the US was wrong when it thought it could fight and win a nuclear war will be very little consolation...

No national missile defense.

BS. What are those missiles in Alaska for then?

With ABM missiles on AEGIS cruisers they can locate their ships on either US coast and hit missiles coming from Russia if they wanted. The later upgrades of SM-3 would make it rather easy.

No road or rail-mobile ICBMs.

No nuclear powers on their border able to launch a nuclear attack giving minutes of warning time. The US planned a rail based system and cancelled it. Road mobile systems are only good to ensure they survive the first strike, The US has built its forces around a first strike since the Cuban missile crisis... stealth bombers don't need to be stealthy for WWIII except when used as part of a first strike against threats still operational.

In comparison the Bear bombers will arrive over Canada about 6 hours after the first Russian ICBMs and SLBMs have wiped out much of North America... they will launch cruise missiles which will likely take another 5-6 hours to reach their targets but the enemy air defences will be in tatters already.

The U.S. pays Russia billions of dollars to encourage disarmament measures, but these billions are diverted to Russian war preparations.

The US doesn't pay a cent to anything it does not benefit from... it paid for subs to be disposed of and warheads to be disposed of. They were paranoid about it turning up in some officials bank account and they have kept a very close eye on where all the money went and none of it was diverted.

Moscow has outfitted hundreds of fighter-bombers with additional fuel tanks and in-flight refueling capability, augmenting Russia's intercontinental strike capability.

What? NATO has land bases within unrefueled flight range of Russia and not only has aircraft that can carry drop tanks but also has aircraft fitted with inflight refuelling and also has enough tanker aircraft to actually make them meaningful. While the majority of Russian service aircraft don't have inflight refuelling capability and they have about a dozen tanker aircraft that operate with their strategic bombers compared with the hundreds of inflight refuelling tankers of the USAF.

Russia has been constructing large numbers of military transport aircraft for foreign customers who do not exist.

They are just starting to produce military transport aircraft to make up for the neglect for the last 20 years.

Russia has recently fielded a new battle tank; a new state-of-the-art fighter; super-quiet submarines which can engage sea, land and air targets simultaneously; a new attack helicopter and sniper rifle.

And have very few actually in service... the vast majority of their inservice stuff is the old obsolete stuff they have had since the end of the cold war.

Russia has developed a revolutionary new rifle-fired infantry weapon, the so-called vacuum grenade, which can give a single Russian soldier the firepower of a 155mm howitzer. Russia has begun joint production of this weapon with the Chinese.

Rubbish. And why would they share such technology with the Chinese?

If they mean the RPO series of flame rockets they have been in service for 30 years and were used in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

Russia now emphasizes the production of mobile ICBMs like the Topol-M, which are designed to evade satellite detection, permitting the Russians to cheat on arms control agreements.

The production and location of TOPOL-M is strictly controlled and monitored and it is being produced because it is all Russian.

Russia continues to develop biological and chemical weapons, sometimes with the use of U.S. funds. According to recent defectors, Russia is now working on a super-plague weapon.

Yet their best biochemist defected to the US in the 1990s and is now working for the US on super plagues.

WTF... defectors? When was this list compiled?

Russian diplomacy is clearly attempting to build an anti-American alliance which includes countries like China, North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Libya, South Africa, Syria, Venezuela, Vietnam, Iran and India.

US arrogance is pushing away former US allies and creating a large group of countries that want to deal on equal terms rather than be lectured to.

Russian Spetsnaz commandos continue to train with suitcase nukes against U.S. targets.

Rubbish.

Russia is hoarding strategic metals which are vital for keeping up war production through the first months of a nuclear world war.

Most of the known deposits in the world of titanium are in Russia and are used in the F-35 comes from Russia... hoarding my @$$. They just happen to have an enormous land mass that contains enormous amounts of raw materials and not many people.

Russia is importing more food than needed for domestic consumption. At the same time, Russia has constructed huge underground nuclear-proof food storage facilities.

What is this crap? If Russia wants a nuclear war what is it waiting for... and why is it spending money to upgrade its conventional forces? Why would it bother signing new Start?

Russia has developed an impressive engineering rescue capability, organized into special military formations positioned outside large cities, for rescuing citizens trapped beneath rubble in the event of a nuclear attack.

BS.

Recent Russian movies and pop songs depict Americans as stupid animals who deserve to die. In keeping with this theme, NATO is depicted as an aggressive alliance, sometimes likened to Hitler's Third Reich.

Recent western computer games allow you to murder Russian civilians in an Airport like a terrorist the west claims to hate and have a current war on. US generally don't depict Russians at all unless they need a drunk, or incompetent copier of old US technology.

Russia is building huge underground cities, like the one at Yamantau Mountain in the Urals. These cities are built more than a thousand feet into the earth and are able to withstand direct nuclear attack.

Rubbish.... these cities are actually on the moon.

Russia has been modernizing nuclear bunkers located beneath Moscow.

No... silly... they are on the moon.

Russia has erected a system of national missile defense far beyond that allowed by the 1972 ABM Treaty. Deploying approximately 10,000 dual-purpose mobile SAM/ABMs, Russia has used a loophole in the treaty to provide a powerful missile shield. Using a common-sense approach to ABM defense, Russia's interceptor missiles employ special nuclear warheads that can destroy incoming warheads without having to score a direct head-on hit.

10,000 ABM missiles... so why are they bothering with S-400 and S-500? Why did they not attack the US in the 1990s when things were sh!t?

Russia is also ahead of the United States in directed energy weapons that could be used to blind or destroy U.S. early warning satellites.

So what? Any attack on early warning satellites just tells you an attack is on... you don't need to be able to see the ICBMs coming... you just need to give the order to launch... unless you expect to be able to track the Russian attack to defend against it and try to win a nuclear war... I thought you said the ABM system was directed against Iranian missiles?

Many of Russia's mafia organizations operate in collaboration with, or under the supervision of, military intelligence and the state security services. Organized crime is used to penetrate Western banks, technology companies, law enforcement and government. Routes used for smuggling drugs and other contraband are reserved in wartime for bringing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons into the U.S.

The US would never associate with organised crime... cough cough bay of pigs cough cough... get Kennedy elected cough cough...

Chinese war preparations

Civil defense drills began in major Chinese cities around July 2000.

Then I suggest you focus on the Swedish... they have extensive civil defence bunkers and have been maintaining them for decades.

Israel probably has more nukes than the Chinese... if they are preparing for a nuclear war it will be one they expect the US to start.

Chinese military commanders have been told that nuclear war with America could begin at any time.

The reckless behaviour of the US military that doesn't surprise me.

China has been developing and deploying new road-mobile long range missiles like the DF-31 and DF-41.

Road mobile missiles are only a problem for countries that want to mount first strike attacks... which is why the US never bothered with road or rail based systems. They plan to start the war so who cares if the enemy launches an attack on their empty silos?

China is modernizing its navy, purchasing advanced Russian warships and missiles capable of sinking U.S. carriers.

When of course the US is withdrawing all its new stuff and introducing muskets. It would be funny, the US with 13 carrier groups whining because China is buying new stuff...

China has been rapidly building a large store of advanced nuclear warheads.

Which is only a small fraction of the number of warheads the US currently has in service let alone the number it has in storage.

China has positioned bases to block the main western entry point into the Pacific, and has acquired indirect control of the Panama Canal through front companies.

Rubbish. What bases? The US accusing a foreign country of having bases outside its territory? That blog will burst into flames any second... the US has more men and women on foreign soil based around the world today than they lost in the whole of WWII... and they are complaining that China might have a base or two?

China has formed military ties with Cuba and Venezuela.

The US used to have military ties with both countries. How else do you think Venezuela got F-16 fighter jets or for that matter the US got a lifetime lease on Guantanimo Bay torture centre in Cuba?

China has also penetrated Sudan, and is spreading missile and nuclear technology to rogue states in Africa and the Middle East.

The US... the largest arms exporter in the world complaining about China selling products. Hypocrite...

China has massed troops, aircraft, ships and missiles opposite Taiwan.

...in CHINA. I know having troops in your own country is a bit of a alien concept for the US military, but it is actually legal.

China has engaged in war exercises during which U.S. forces in the Pacific were targeted by Chinese forces.

The US actively supported one side in the Chinese civil war that led to the creation of Taiwan and supplies modern military equipment to Taiwan... which would be the direct equivalent of China giving Cuba lots of money and weapons...

Well that was an interesting read through the Republican manifesto... I hope they beat those commies in their heads... you know, after making the bestest of friends with the commie chinese and still hating Russia after it became democratic.

I'm not saying everything in that link is necessarily or absolutely correct, but the Russians and Chinese are procuring lots of new and advanced missiles, right? This is a fact, isn't it?


As for what you said about Israel having more nuclear weapons than China I have no doubt that is indeed the case. Israel supposedly has around 300-400 nuclear weapons, while China has less than 200.


As for the US ABM system, from what I gather it is basically a placebo, a feel-good system that won't achieve what it is supposed to achieve. The ABM is basically a political toy for NATO so the USA can claim to be doing something to assure the safety of NATO members.


Also, I am very much aware that American leaders/officials violate their words/promises, especially in regards to the promises that Gorbachev claims they made in regards to not expanding NATO into the former Warsaw Pact nations. I believe Gorbachev is telling the truth when he claims that such promises were made by US/NATO leaders.

If I were in a leadership position in Russia I think I could stomach NATO expanding into Poland, barely tolerating it for the sake of peace, but if they try to expand into Ukraine I would draw the line, up the ante, and tell them, in very simple terms, "back down or we can fight it out, the decision is yours."

NATO is also very hostile to Belarus for reasons that I cannot quite comprehend. They refer to Lukashenko as a tyrant and a thug who supposedly limits criticism of his regime, but the Western nations all have "hate speech" laws and they severely curtail criticism of their administrations through the use of economic pressure. If you speak out against their governments they do everything they can to get you fired from your job.

I'm not defending NATO, I am merely expressing my concern that the Russians/Chinese might be initiating another nuclear arms race.

It is very odd that Russian VDV units are training in Colorado. They have been tasked to "take and hold" the Denver Airport, an NSA base, and a CIA base, against hostile forces.


http://rt.com/news/troops-russian-drills-america-214/




It raises an interesting question, what hostile forces would the VDV need to fight against to "take and hold" the Denver International Airport and the massive CIA base in the Denver area? It cannot possibly be Mexican cartels/terrorists because Mexico is probably a good 1200-1500 miles away from Denver and the USA has ample units (101st, 82nd, etc) that could "take and hold" an airport in Colorado.

I highly suspect that the projected "hostile forces" are none other than armed local citizens who might be rising up in revolt against the CIA/NSA/FBI/USA/NATO regime.

I'm not saying everything in that link is necessarily or absolutely correct, but the Russians and Chinese are procuring lots of new and advanced missiles, right? This is a fact, isn't it?

Yes, that is a fact... but a very unimportant one.

What people who talk about such facts ignore is that while they are making new ones their arsenal is going from 6,000 warheads under START 1 to less than 2,200 under the Moscow Treaty, and now to about 1,500 under the new Start.

They are replacing older model missiles containing foreign components with newer Russian models... it really isn't that big a deal.

As for the US ABM system, from what I gather it is basically a placebo, a feel-good system that won't achieve what it is supposed to achieve. The ABM is basically a political toy for NATO so the USA can claim to be doing something to assure the safety of NATO members.

The system is very limited and has fairly basic missiles, but if you actually read the plan they talk about several block upgrades over the next 10 years that include several significant upgrades in performance of the interceptor missiles and by block three they are talking about very high performance very capable missiles. The initial shield is very modest and could be overwhelmed easily because it has limited performance against decoys.

The point however is that the system is designed to fit AEGIS class cruisers which are in service in large numbers... I am sure the US would respond negatively to a Russian ABM system that could fit in SA-20 missile tubes and could operate with SA-20 batteries... these systems are no unregulated and there is nothing to stop the US from building as many ABM missiles as they want and deploying them and deciding not to actually tell anyone... there is no restriction on numbers or deployment and no requirement for any notification of any kind.

The US signed the new START treaty which clearly stated that strategic weapons are directly linked to strategic defences, which means Russia is hardly going to agree to reduce warhead numbers while the US starts building ABM systems all round the world.

If I were in a leadership position in Russia I think I could stomach NATO expanding into Poland, barely tolerating it for the sake of peace, but if they try to expand into Ukraine I would draw the line, up the ante, and tell them, in very simple terms, "back down or we can fight it out, the decision is yours."

To be honest NATO expansion into the Ukraine or even Georgia has never bothered me... Russia as a nation needs to think about itself first, and if Georgia and the Ukraine want to join NATO then I have no problem with that, but of course you can't join a gang that your next door neighbour is excluded from and expect it not to effect your relationship for the worse.

I think that most of Europe are a bunch of stuck up snobs that are very eurocentric and that Russia should look elsewhere for economic and military partnerships. I don't think Russia should reject Europe but I also don't think it can expect any real friendship from the region as a whole.

There are some states they have good relationships with and they should be maintained, but it is like the youngest kid in an abusive family jumping through hoops to earn the love and respect they need but are never going to get. Russia has been through the Yeltsen period and it got them nothing and nowhere.

Obviously I am not Russian, but I think the west had a huge opportunity that it has blown.

The west likes to point out that WWII was created because of western actions after WWI in blaming Germany they created a time bomb that ended up costing them dearly... though ironically it was Russia that paid the highest price. The western historians claimed they learned their lesson and rebuilt their former foes but in reality the rebuilding of Germany and Japan had nothing to do with lessons learned.

The Cold war was not a war against communism as depicted in the west... otherwise China would have become the main enemy and Russia would have been built up to counter them... the reality is that Russia was the enemy because it has the potential to be a real rival and a real threat... even today and that is what the west is still fighting for... open up their markets so the big powerful western companies can go in and take everything over... in China it is 1.5 billion consumers that has the western companies mouths watering... in Russia it is the oil and gas and metals etc etc.

I'm not defending NATO, I am merely expressing my concern that the Russians/Chinese might be initiating another nuclear arms race.

Well if your concern is an arms race then tell the US government to halt all ABM activity because that is the only thing that will create an arms race.

Consider the situation that both the Russians and the US are cowboys with handguns... both are quick enough and accurate enough that if one tries to shoot the other they will both likely end up dead. To reduce the chance of an accident or mistake or misunderstanding leading to them both being killed they have both agreed to limit the type of weapon they are allowed to use... both have cannons with 5 second fuses and grapeshot loads so if one lights their fuse the other will see and light their fuse and neither will escape the hundreds of heavy lead balls that will be discharged by both weapons.

The problem is that with the ABM systems the US has set up a paper wall to stand behind because he is afraid the guy down the street might develop firearm technology and try to shoot at him.

Now that paper screen doesn't mean anything to start with but this American has plans in a couple of years to put up a few more screens that can move about and they will be made of wood and a bit further down the track the plans show he will start experimenting with different types of metals of varying thicknesses.

Now all the while he is claiming he wont hide behind it if the other guy lights his fuse... but he wont put that in writing... trust him.

In about 2020 when the US guy is standing behind moving plates of steel he will be trying to get the Russian guy to limit the weight of the projectiles in his cannon load.

Obviously if the US continues down the ABM development path Russia will tear up the new START treaty and they will look at the potential... not the capability... the potential of the US ABM systems around the place and they will build missiles and other systems to defeat that by a safe margin.

Not because they want a nuclear war... but because they don't, so they want to maintain their nuclear DETERRENT.

I highly suspect that the projected "hostile forces" are none other than armed local citizens who might be rising up in revolt against the CIA/NSA/FBI/USA/NATO regime.

Russia wont send combat troops to Afghanistan... why would they send any to the US... except on exercise?

Anti terrorism training is normal and as far as I know the US already has similar exercises with its NATO partners too... if things get bad in the US I rather suspect it will be British or German troops in the US before they ever consider Russian troops... and even if they wanted them I rather doubt the Russian government would consider sending them. The problems in Kazakhstan and they didn't send in Russian troops to interfere there eitehr.

[quote="GarryB"]

Russia wont send combat troops to Afghanistan... why would they send any to the US... except on exercise?

Anti terrorism training is normal and as far as I know the US already has similar exercises with its NATO partners too... if things get bad in the US I rather suspect it will be British or German troops in the US before they ever consider Russian troops... and even if they wanted them I rather doubt the Russian government would consider sending them. The problems in Kazakhstan and they didn't send in Russian troops to interfere there eitehr.

I don't even want Canadian soldiers training in the USA, I also do not approve of the Luftwaffe airbase that the Germans get to operate in the Southwestern United States.

The prospect of having several thousand VDV in the Midwestern/Western USA is not particularly inviting.

I'd rather they not be here.



On another note, why can't the USA just share the ABM with Russia so Russia doesn't have to worry about rogues obtaining a lost/misplaced/retired warhead and slapping it on a missile they obtain from somewhere. I don't believe Russia would hide behind an ABM and use it as a shield to start a nuclear war, but the USA does have a history of using nuclear weapons against other nations. I doubt Japan would have been attacked with nuclear weapons if they had their own nuclear weapons at the time (assuming the USA knew about the nuclear weapons).


If NATO is going to expand east why don't they invite Russia to join NATO?

Chechnya is basically a "front" (of sorts) in the "War on terror" or the "War on Islamic terror" and from what I've read recently, there are a number of clerics who are demanding sharia law in all of Russia. If I am not mistaken Russia has somewhere around 10-15 million Muslims within her borders, which means there is an ample population base to provide support for a massive Islamic insurgency/guerilla movement.

[quote="GarryB"]

The Cold war was not a war against communism as depicted in the west... otherwise China would have become the main enemy and Russia would have been built up to counter them... the reality is that Russia was the enemy because it has the potential to be a real rival and a real threat... even today and that is what the west is still fighting for... open up their markets so the big powerful western companies can go in and take everything over... in China it is 1.5 billion consumers that has the western companies mouths watering... in Russia it is the oil and gas and metals etc etc.

My views on the Cold War are very controversial (in regards to mainstream America) and get heavy into conspiracy. Basically they can be summarized thusly...

The Cold War was basically a scam operated so that the Western nations could distract their population with the ever-present threat of "the enemy over there, behind the iron curtain" and keep the focus externally while the leaders and interlopers who hijacked control of the Western nations flooded them with third world immigrants, mostly from Africa, Asia, the Islamic nations, and (in the case of the USA) Central America, in addition to consolidating the various Western nations into soft-tyranny police states with draconian "hate speech" laws, civil asset forfeiture laws, eminent domain abuses, gun control, etc.

The domestic agendas pursued in the various Western nations required that the focus of the citizens be directed elsewhere lest they realize what was going on in their respective nations. The Cold War served well as it kept them on a constant war footing.

Anybody who objected to the expansion of police/CIA/FBI powers in the USA would be accused of weakening the nation and leaving it open to communist/Soviet infiltration, when the communists were already here and already in power, occupying the media, finance, academia, the State Department, etc... FDR, Owen Lattimore, Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Harry Hopkins, etc, these were the communists who ruled the 1930s and 1940s.

Lattimore, the main USA policy "expert" in China and a top official in the Pacific War Office in the early 1940s, supposedly working on behalf of the Nationalist Chinese with Chiang-Ki-Shek, wrote that the best thing America could do for China was to let the Soviets/Stalin have it and let them help set up a government. He also wrote extensively in favor of Mao and referred to Mao as "the best hope for peace and prosperity in China." He also passed on information about Nationalist troop movements to Mao. The Nationalists demanded the USA recall him but the USA said that they had to deal with Lattimore or else they would withdraw aid for the Nationalists.



The Cold War also served as a sort of an "experiment" or a "test comparison" to see which model of tyranny worked better for Europeans (be they Europeans in Europe or Europeans in America, Australia, Canada, etc).

The gulag, boot on the throat, all-powerful police state with KGB able to take you away in the middle of the night, Soviet model...

Or the decadent hedonist culture of degeneracy and unrestrained materialism/consumerism in the West, where money becomes God and people voluntarily censor themselves because they know that speaking out (on certain issues) will result in economic hardship via loss of their job and loss of access to government provided money/benefits.

Additionally, in the Western model, massive social pressures are brought to bear to get people to censor themselves, effectively eliminating the need for a KGB because people essentially police themselves to avoid being ostracized by the 98-99% of the nation that does what the TV/media tells them to do and what they assess that society experts them to do.



Basically it was 1984 (Soviets) vs Brave New World (West). The wall didn't come down because the East was weak and was giving up, the Wall came down because the elites assessed that the situation was such that the Cold War was no longer needed. The Western model of unrestrained materialism and consumerism won out as the preferred path to tyranny and total control.


Keep in mind that the USA propped the USSR up with repeated grain ships throughout the 1970s, which is something that shouldn't happen if there was really a "Cold War" between "mortal enemies." These grain shipments were organized by an elite banking family based in the USA, known as the Warburgs.

I don't even want Canadian soldiers training in the USA, I also do not approve of the Luftwaffe airbase that the Germans get to operate in the Southwestern United States.

The prospect of having several thousand VDV in the Midwestern/Western USA is not particularly inviting.

I'd rather they not be here.

Well the US has over a quarter of a million soldiers based overseas... do you think all those countries actually want US troops there?

As you have found governments rarely ask their populations before such things... there are more than a few Germans who really don't want US troops in Germany... or the nuclear weapons they have there either.

On another note, why can't the USA just share the ABM with Russia so Russia doesn't have to worry about rogues obtaining a lost/misplaced/retired warhead and slapping it on a missile they obtain from somewhere.

In public talks the US and NATO invited Russia to join the ABM system in Europe but when the talks actually started the US side said it didn't object but Poland could object to Russia visiting with prearranged consent from the Poles. Of course the Poles wanted the system based in their country as a raised middle finger to Russia so there was no chance of them agreeing to let them even visit... but that was system one.

With the new system they talked about cooperation but it turned out when they sat down what they actually meant was for each side to build completely different and separate systems and share data...

Not really what was promised.

If NATO is going to expand east why don't they invite Russia to join NATO?

The obvious reason is because NATO is all about containing Russia and very little else.

Chechnya is basically a "front" (of sorts) in the "War on terror" or the "War on Islamic terror" and from what I've read recently, there are a number of clerics who are demanding sharia law in all of Russia.

Clerics will always make stupid unreasonable demands... that is why they get to wear the funny clothes and don't have real jobs.

If I am not mistaken Russia has somewhere around 10-15 million Muslims within her borders, which means there is an ample population base to provide support for a massive Islamic insurgency/guerilla movement.

Except that most people don't want sharia law... after all an eye for an eye and everyone is blind.

Catholic priests suggest condoms should not be used and there is no need for contraception... people should just not have sex except when they are married and only for the purposes of starting or extending their families... and that isn't going to happen either.

The Cold War was basically a scam operated so that the Western nations... <snip>

The only problem I have with such theories is that it assumes the west is that organised and responsive... personally I think it is all much more simple than that... the west hated Russia because it had hated it all those years before and that is what it was used to doing. They hated it before because it was an imperial power that threatened the hegemony of the west in several critical places like China and India... Imagine if the Russians rolled into China and offered them a better deal for their silk and opium? Or if Russia rolled into India?

Looking back we can see how preposterous such an idea might be but I have a book written in the 1870s by a British Naval gunner and he includes a whole chapter on the dangers of a Russian attack on India.

The huge irony is of course the West has interfered in Russia far more often than vice versa... including picking a side in their civil war and getting involved directly.

At the end of the day the west saw the Soviet Union as a potential viable alternative to the system that made them rich and powerful and they are not sure if that alternative system was adopted widely that they would remain rich and powerful so they fought it tooth and nail because nothing scares them more than poverty.

It is a weapon they wield with abandon... they will impose political and economic isolation on any country at the drop of a hat... wonder what would happen if some country did the same to them... imagine if Russia said that the US laws banning the import and sale of Russian made firearms violates the idea of free trade and that they will ban all exports of titanium to the US until they change their laws. According to WTO rules you are not allowed to ban or restrict goods just because they were not made locally...

The Cold War also served as a sort of an "experiment" or a "test comparison" to see which model of tyranny worked better for Europeans (be they Europeans in Europe or Europeans in America, Australia, Canada, etc).

It was hardly a fair test. What it showed was that even a large country with lots of resources can be broken if it has to build an army to fight the whole world while at the same time internationally isolated and economically blockaded. The growth of Communist China shows that the communist system is useful to the west as a source of cheap consumer items because of low wages and no labour laws... just bribe the local official and any problems go away.

In fact I remember in the early 1990s a lot of western companies were drooling over the large numbers of skilled people in the eastern block they could pay low wages to... but what actually happened was that all the production assets in the Soviet Union were sold... and only the former communists had the power and money to buy everything and they did what anyone who bought a worn out factory did... sack three quarters of the workforce immediately, pinch their retirement funds sell off the obsolete equipment and then sell the factory to someone else. Easy way to make money. Leaves terrible wreckage behind... which is why there are so many Russian billionaires in Britain because if they went back to Russia they would either be in Jail or lynched.

Keep in mind that the USA propped the USSR up with repeated grain ships throughout the 1970s, which is something that shouldn't happen if there was really a "Cold War" between "mortal enemies." These grain shipments were organized by an elite banking family based in the USA, known as the Warburgs.

The grain wasn't free... just like the lend lease wasn't free.

Ogannisyan8887 wrote: You guys are right, U.S will never attack russia directly, but they will arm their enemy's and conduct proxy wars against them

Yes, you have splitting forces there in on PLAY and ARRANGE tensions form just above on couples ally... They suggest terror to get all arms to themselves and really ARMYMAKER supports by antithesis, which keeps metatalk outsiders out.

russiadefence.net is turning into the new mp.net

What president Putin said a few months ago is an absolute fact. Russia can destroy America in 30 minutes.. The west stiill trembles when Russia rises up.Thats why they did absolutely nothing when Russia obliterated Georgia. This article is laughable. It would be suicide to attack Russia and America and Nato knows it
.

Russia hardly obliterated Georgia. Not like their whole army ceased to exist....they just ran. Quickly

It does not take thousands of nuclear weapons to deter or intimidate any would be aggressor, one might cite the Yeonpyeong event in whcih North Korea decided to launch an artillery strike towards South Korea. I was surprise to see the US only making a lot of noise and conducting some naval exercise to "deter the North" as one reporter said.

And if I am not wrong North Korea's nuclear arsenal is small compared to that of other nuclear powers.

TR1 wrote:Russia hardly obliterated Georgia. Not like their whole army ceased to exist....they just ran. Quickly

LOL you are right. Let me rephrase. "When Russia was on the Verge of obliterating Georgia

“Nuclear Weapons Modernization in Russia and China”: A Re-Cap
By Stephanie Spies

On Friday, the House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing entitled “Nuclear Weapons Modernization in Russia and China: Understanding Impacts to the United States” which featured testimony from Dr. Mark Schneider, Senior Analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy, Mr. Richard D. Fisher, Jr. Senior Fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, and Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, the Director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. These three experts discussed the status of Russian and Chinese nuclear modernization efforts and how these programs should affect U.S. nuclear weapons decisions, especially in light of impending budget cuts. While these three experts all held slightly different views on the likely dangers of Russian and Chinese modernization, they agreed on one overriding principle: the U.S. must maintain a strong nuclear deterrent in order to prevent the outbreak of a nuclear conflict.

Dr. Schneider, the first to testify, discussed the details of Russian and Chinese nuclear modernization efforts and the significant dangers they pose for the United States. Relying on a variety of unclassified documents, he argued that both countries are modernizing every element of their strategic triads, increasing the numbers, types, and roles of their nuclear weapons capabilities. Russia has modified its SLBMs and ICBMs, increased its number of MIRV’d weapons, and has begun development of a new heavy ICBM dedicated to a counterforce nuclear mission against U.S. ICBMs, a troubling yet legal advancement given New START’s numerical limits. China, meanwhile, has developed or is in the process of producing two new ICBMs, a new ballistic missile submarine, and potentially a new bomber, although the secret nature of their program makes it difficult for the U.S. to know the status of these projects. According to Schneider, that these two countries are experimenting with new types of nuclear weapons, including testing low-yield nuclear weapons, is “undeniable”.

In detailing these modernization programs, Dr. Schneider emphasized the similarity of Russian and Chinese nuclear doctrines and their divergence from U.S. nuclear policy. Both countries appear to be increasing not only the numbers of, but also the roles that nuclear weapons play in their respective security policies. Although China has a “no first use” of nuclear weapons policy, it is not “real” and commits the government to nothing according to Schneider, who referred to classified Chinese documents which discuss adjusting the country’s nuclear threshold. However, Schneider’s greater concerns were with the advancement of Russian nuclear capabilities and doctrine. Not only does Russia have more nuclear weapons than the U.S., but it possesses the capability to attack a variety of targets that the U.S. cannot, he cautioned. Moreover, Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in conducting warfare, and in fact classifies the first use of nuclear weapons as a method of “de-escalating conflicts”. According to Schneider’s testimony, these advancements in Russian nuclear strategy pose real threats to the U.S. and to strategic stability.

Mr. Fisher’s subsequent testimony, focusing on Chinese modernization programs, also discussed the troublesome differences between U.S. and PRC views on the role and utility of nuclear weapons. Now is not the time to reduce U.S. deterrent capabilities in Asia, he warned, because perceived U.S. weakness may embolden Chinese adventurism and risk-taking, as empirically demonstrated in Vietnam, Korea, and India. Referring to the Chinese government’s continuous rejections of strategic stability discussions with the U.S., Fisher argued that the U.S. should use history as a guiding force in determining Chinese intentions and predicting the country’s likely actions. Not only should the U.S. presume Chinese deception in nuclear planning and policies, he explained, but it should question whether the PRC will be satisfied with only a small nuclear force if its ambitions are to build a global power projection capability. Therefore, Fisher set forth a series of Chinese advancements the U.S. must attempt to understand or monitor, including the rate of deployment for new ICBMs and SLBMs with multiple warheads, growth in regional missile forces, and progress on national missile defense and space warfare capabilities. The most significant threat from China, however, is its promotion of a proliferation network through abetting North Korean, Iranian, and Pakistani nuclear capabilities, all of which represent regimes that have links to terrorist networks. The U.S. must convince China to roll back this “network of dictatorships with nuclear weapons”, Fisher cautioned, or face a significant deterrence challenge and risk of nuclear terrorism.

Dr. Lewis’s testimony, although equally insistent on the necessity of stable deterrence for strategic stability, emphasized the risks of unintentional and accidental nuclear use in the current security environment. All states, he argued, are replacing their delivery vehicles, but none are producing new nuclear warheads. Given the current international moratorium on nuclear testing, the U.S. is still best equipped to maintain its stockpile, despite Russian and Chinese modernization efforts, Lewis explained. Although there are no scenarios for the intentional use of nuclear weapons against the U.S., he purported, the U.S. must continue to pay attention to effective and stable deterrence. Russian fears of a U.S. decapitating first strike explain Russian nuclear and political behavior, while Chinese intentions to place its forces on alert in a crisis are intended as a signal to U.S. policymakers. This situation, he cautions, makes miscalculation or unauthorized nuclear use, especially in a crisis, more likely.

When asked by Chairman Turner to discuss the potential impacts of U.S. nuclear cuts as a result of deficit reduction, each expert had a different concern. Schneider feared that Russia will use its nuclear weapons to achieve political clout, and thus may box itself into a corner in its pursuit of great power status, potentially resulting in a destabilizing security environment. Fisher, meanwhile, discussed the possibility that substantial reductions in U.S. nuclear warheads could allow China to increase its nuclear weapons numbers, in conjunction with missile defense and space-based capabilities, so that it could undermine the U.S. ability to deter Chinese aggression, particularly on its periphery. Again referring to China’s empirical willingness to take risks and strike with little warning when a crisis presents itself, Fisher argued that a “small drawdown” in the U.S. could embolden Chinese temptations. In particular, he referenced Chinese considerations of an arms sale to Gadhafi because the U.S. had decided to take a back seat in supporting Libyan rebels.  Prior U.S. “concessions” on nuclear issues, such as New START ratification and Obama’s Nuclear Posture Review, have not prompted Russia and China to make similar reductions in their nuclear arsenals or modernization efforts, Fisher indicated, increasing the likelihood that their modernization efforts will continue in the face of nuclear funding cuts. While Lewis did not commit to such a strong statement about the effects of budget reductions, he did defend the option of modifying existing nuclear capabilities for security requirements when they arise. The U.S. should not pursue nuclear modernization like Russia and China, who are continually re-manufacturing their nuclear capabilities, he argued, but it should maintain an effective nuclear deterrent.

The most controversial issue discussed between the three experts, however, was whether the U.S. could adequately detect Russian and Chinese nuclear modernization, particularly new testing. Dr. Lewis claimed that the current moratorium on nuclear testing gives the U.S. an advantage in modernizing its stockpile, as countries like China are constrained in putting multiple warheads on their missiles without violating the treaty . Fisher, however, argued that not only will China try to mask its tests if it can, but it also may have different standards for testing than the U.S., thereby employing techniques such as computer simulation rather than conducting tests that can be detected, even if such tests may be better for ensuring a weapon’s effectiveness. Similarly, Schneider disagreed with Lewis’ contention that the moratorium constrains Russian and Chinese modernization efforts, referencing reports and intelligence that indicate these two countries have been testing. He also insisted that there are currently significant limitations on the U.S. ability to detect tests.

Fisher and Schneider in particular voiced concerns when Representative Lamborn, a member of the subcommittee, asked about the implications of a recently discovered Chinese underground tunnel, discussed in a new DTRA report, used to transport nuclear weapons and potentially launch them from different locations without being detected. Schneider warned that this discovery will make efforts to find and verify China’s nuclear forces even more difficult, as its mobile missiles are inherently hard to locate, and may allow the PRC to increase the size of its stockpile without U.S. knowledge. Fisher confirmed this fear, referencing the potential for a Chinese nuclear triad by the end of the decade. Because China’s nuclear program is already somewhat opaque and secret in nature, as opposed to Russia’s more public emphasis on its nuclear doctrine, this tunnel may further complicate U.S. efforts to monitor Chinese nuclear modernization.

However, even if this modernization is increasing and U.S. budget cuts were to accelerate it, as Fisher suggests, can the U.S. offer a solution? The answer, at least for now, appears to be no. As all three experts testified, Chinese and Russian motivations for nuclear modernization go beyond desires to match the U.S., and thus cannot be reversed by U.S. policy alone. While Fisher explained that China’s ultimate desire for regime survival dictates its nuclear policy, Schneider described Russian aspirations for great power status as the basis for its modernization efforts. Lewis, meanwhile, argued that although Russia and China desire to have the same technological capabilities as the U.S., they also are “paranoid” about one another, a sentiment which is reflected in their nuclear policies. While Chinese modernization seems to be somewhat Russia-oriented, he contended, Russia seemed frightened by the news of the Chinese underground tunnel, illustrating the “depth of their mutual hostility”. Although it is impossible to determine the intentions of these two countries without access to classified information and government or military officials, these statements seem to demonstrate motivations for nuclear modernization that the U.S. does not and cannot affect. While cutting the U.S. nuclear weapons budget may be costly or unwise for other reasons, as discussed in an earlier post, the argument that new cuts will embolden Russian and Chinese modernization seems misplaced. The U.S. can and should maintain nuclear deterrence in order to preserve strategic stability with these two countries, especially if miscalculation or an accident were to occur in a crisis, but its investments in nuclear weapons do not appear to dictate Russian and Chinese modernization efforts and their perceptions of deterrence to the extent that some U.S. policymakers may believe.  

Stephanie Spies is a research intern for the Project on Nuclear Issues. The views expressed above are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Strategic and International Studies or the Project on Nuclear Issues

http://csis.org/blog/nuclear-weapons-modernization-russia-and-china-re-cap