WW3, Will it happen?

GarryB wrote:Well lets be clear... the bible we are talking about was written rather a few thousand years ago by people who had no idea America or Russia would exist.

It has also been edited and translated several times too... the English language didn't exist then either.

This suggests people are reading some vague predictions and putting two and two together and getting a conspiracy...

And lets face it... do you believe the interpretations of Putins speeches when translated by CNN or the BBC?

About Putin's speeches I don't listen to them so I can't answer.

Yes the bible has been edited and translated several times; however, one can only see there is something intriguing reading the bible prophecies and what is going on right now.  There is talk about a conflict in the Middle East involving Syria that will escalate involving Russia and America.  You can read in the news right now all the talk about Russian and American involvement in the Syrian Civil War.  Is it just a coincidence or is the bible predicting an event that will probably happen?


http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/721008/Russia-America-nuclear-war-Putin-Obama-bunker-fallout-shelter-Syria-Bashar-al-Assad

http://cowgernation.com/2016/10/27/damascus-syria-will-cease-from-being-a-city-and-will-be-a-ruinous-heap/

GarryB wrote:There has always been conflict in the Middle East... 2000 years ago it would not surprise me for someone writing a book to talk about conflict in the Middle East... what would surprise me would be for them to mention Antarctica or New Zealand or South America... places they did not know exist...

People talking about reading stuff in the bible being relevant now reminds me of my poor english teachers from high school trying to tell me of the hidden meanings in Shakespeare. What a waste. If he wanted to say stuff and have people understand why was he so vague, why not be more forthright.

Instead billions of western educated teenagers hate that prick and will go on hating him for most of their lives because his work makes them feel stupid when they are not.

The people of the past are not stupid... they don't know as much as we know now but they are not stupid. The vagueness in the bible is because they didn't know what countries would be created and how the world would expand over the next few thousand years. They could make predictions... that is easy... people who write horoscopes do that all the time... the position of Saturn means you should avoid wasting money... when you should avoid wasting money all the time of course but lets not question this... there is obvious scientific evidence that the positions of objects in space have a direct effect on your life... personally and that there is an all powerful being who has some super complicated plan... he will tell people 2,000 years ago but wont tell us personally because his magic power comes from your believing something that cannot be proven... he is faith powered.

Sorry... but science got us to the moon and beyond and gives us machines and medicines... faith and religion has killed a lot of people and been used to oppress many others.



Religion and science have been misused, but one provides real solutions and the other the hope that everything will be OK in the end and all the suffering will be worth it.

Yes you are right about faith and religion has killed a lot of people and been used to oppress many others. However, If you look at all the people Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc have killed, I would say that atheists have killed as many people as anyone else. Humans are violent by nature, and will use all kinds of reasons to kill each other, so wars will continue to plague us. People who kill in the name of religion, tho, tend to be the most unpredictable because of the overwhelming belief and passion they have for their cause. Atheists have killed as many, if not more, and they've done it in a lot less time. Power hungry people will continue to kill for decades, if not centuries, to come, regardless of what banner they do it under whether it's religion or nationalism or despotism.

Just because someone "identifies" themselves with a particular religion doesn't mean they actually adhere to the tenants of said religion. There's evidence of that all over the world! What you need to understand is that most wars and battles fought before the 20th century were fought between a few hundred or a few thousand belligerents. During the 20th century, battles (and massacres) typically involved tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of troops and civilians. More people were killed in wars and massacres in the 20th century than the previous 2,000 years before that. And the large majority of that was caused by atheists! I'm not pointing this out to slam atheists, I'm just saying that people will kill for whatever reason regardless of what they believe in, or don't believe in. And don't look for it to end anytime soon...

The Soviet Union was active in its opposition to religion and oppressed millions of people; North Korea is another country that denies its citizens rights and is an atheistic state.  

This website has a good analysis of the religious vs atheistic battle. In the long run, humans will oppress each other under any label

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4076

Your comment that,
"Sorry... but science got us to the moon and beyond and gives us machines and medicines." is flawed because this can be easily turned around by making the point that science gave us atomic weapons, biological and chemical weapons.

Religion says ‘love your neighbor.’ Science drops cruise missiles and depleted uranium on noncombatants.

Christian theology was essential for the rise of science. That the leading scientific figures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries overwhelmingly were devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God’s handiwork. Here is a list of a few noted Bible-believing scientists: Isaac Newton, Copernicus, Lord Kelvin, Joseph Lister, Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle, and Gregor Mendel. Airplane inventors Wilbur and Orville Wright were Christians. There is no inherent conflict between religion and science.

The Christian worldview gave birth in a clear, articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself. This Christian worldview of science laid the foundation for the space exploration of the USSR and the United States (if true) landing man on the moon so that refutes your point about religion not playing a role in going to the moon.

Natural philosopher, chemist, physicist, and inventor Robert Boyle (1627–1691) was a christian.  The membership of the Royal Society was made up of many Christians who shared Boyle’s view that “the world was God’s handiwork” and “it was their duty to study and understand this handiwork as a means of glorifying God.

http://theseekeroftruth.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-atheism-is-wrong.html

I think you seriously underestimate bible prophecy.  For example, the Bible predicted that a man named Cyrus would be born, would rise to power in the Middle East, and would release the Jewish people from captivity (Isaiah 44:28—45:7). Approximately 150 years later, Cyrus the Great became king of Persia and released the Jews.

In Ezekiel 26 God says through the prophet that the Phoenician city of Tyre would be destroyed, specifying that a conqueror would come in and wipe out the city. He said that the city would be scraped clean and that the rubble left on the city's surface would be thrown into the ocean. The prophecy ended by saying that men would dry their fishnets there and that the city would never be rebuilt. Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon laid siege to Tyre three years after the prophecy was given.

About 250 years later Alexander the Great came into the area of Tyre needing supplies for his eastern campaign. He sent word to the residents of the island city, but they refused his request. They believed they were safe from attack on the island. Alexander was so infuriated at their response that he and his army picked up the rubble that was left from Nebuchadnezzar's devastation of the mainland city and threw it into the sea. They used it to build a causeway, which allowed them to march to the island and destroy the city. That exactly fulfilled what Ezekiel had predicted hundreds of years previously.

If you travel to the site of Tyre today, you'll see fishermen there drying their nets. The city was never rebuilt.

I am not a bible scholar but I find it intriguing about the prophecies regarding the United States and Russia. On Sunday, I was reading through this this link WWIII and the other regarding the Holy Quran predicting an alliance between Iran, Russia and Turkey and how the bible says the same thing an wanted to share say insight about both.

dino00 wrote:...So its not only coast targets, Russia how has an anti-ship ballistic missile.

And people say that INF was a good thing...

Can't wait for extra stage version of Iskander, that should put additional screws on naval targets

PapaDragon wrote:

dino00 wrote:...So its not only coast targets, Russia how has an anti-ship ballistic missile.

And people say that INF was a good thing...

Can't wait for extra stage version of Iskander, that should put additional screws on naval targets

Copenhagen - Kalingrad 515km so form Baltiysk you can control ships passing Baltic straits.
Istanbul to Sevastopol is 544 km. Bosporus form Crimea too

PapaDragon wrote:And people say that INF was a good thing...

The Soviets negotiated the treaty quite poorly. And in the end, the United States did not abide by the treaty for quite some time... (drones is one example, another is VLS system in Romania) However it was still a very useful treaty taking into account global security.

At certain altitudes you can no longer see the missile, because of interference in LEO. Which means that you have very little time to discern where an MBRM is flying to and you have no way of figuring out what kind of warhead it has.

Imagine such a scenario, when US wants to strike targets in the Middle East using such weaponry. Accidents can happen.

Additionally, now there is nothing limiting the US from stationing ballistic missiles in Europe, which will undoubtedly spiral out of control as it even further lowers the amount of time to react.

What a lot of people do not understand is that after a nuclear showdown, not all military structures will be annihilated. People will still have to fight. So you need to make sure you damage your opponents industrial centres enough, that you can win such a fight.

nero wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:And people say that INF was a good thing...

The Soviets negotiated the treaty quite poorly. And in the end, the United States did not abide by the treaty for quite some time... (drones is one example, another is VLS system in Romania) However it was still a very useful treaty taking into account global security.

At certain altitudes you can no longer see the missile, because of interference in LEO. Which means that you have very little time to discern where an MBRM is flying to and you have no way of figuring out what kind of warhead it has.

Imagine such a scenario, when US wants to strike targets in the Middle East using such weaponry. Accidents can happen.

Additionally, now there is nothing limiting the US from stationing ballistic missiles in Europe, which will undoubtedly spiral out of control as it even further lowers the amount of time to react.

What a lot of people do not understand is that after a nuclear showdown, not all military structures will be annihilated. People will still have to fight.  So you need to make sure you damage your opponents industrial centres enough, that you can win such a fight.

1.) MOD said they would reply symmetrically if they deployed in Europe, meaning you may see something deployed in the Western hemisphere. 2.) The U.S. already had a massive advantage in intermediate range missiles with all of it's destroyers in it's surface fleet capable of launching Tomahawks and the Federation had no chance of catching up, plus they also had Aegis Ashore on land, but because the INF Treaty is dead it effectively unties their hand and negates the advantage they had in naval assets. 3.)Who'll man the industrial centers if the civilian populations are already vaporized and the cities are turned in to irradiated volcanic glass?

That's the key right there. The US had an advantage with it's ships being able to launch Tomahawks from greater range. After the treaty is now done, Russia can place multiple systems around the nation that can launch Kalibr, Iskander and other missiles with medium range. Doesn't necessarily have to be manned either. New launch structures could possibly allow 6 Kalibrs per truck.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

dino00 wrote:...So its not only coast targets, Russia how has an anti-ship ballistic missile.

And people say that INF was a good thing...

Can't wait for extra stage version of Iskander, that should put additional screws on naval targets

Copenhagen - Kalingrad 515km so form Baltiysk you can control ships passing Baltic straits.
Istanbul to Sevastopol is 544 km. Bosporus form Crimea too

In the Crimea you really have Bastion-P complexes with a range of up to 600km, capable of firing supersonic Onyxes.. their ranges from the Bastion-P are listed at something like 350km, but that was while the INF treaty was in effect.

They can attack land targets too; they tested that capability in Syria.

flamming_python wrote:

In the Crimea you really have Bastion-P complexes with a range of up to 600km, capable of firing supersonic Onyxes.. their ranges from the Bastion-P are listed at something like 350km, but that was while the INF treaty was in effect.
They can attack land targets too; they tested that capability in Syria.

Now there is no need to restrict Bastion ranges anymore...check Onyx thread -new modfication of old goo d Brahmos is now 4,5-5Ma + ~800km range. New engine+fuel.


BTW As for Iskander is is still 8Ma vs 2,5Ma Onyx

Europe by itself is not ready to confront Russia in an armed conflict without the US support with or without IADS. First time in their history, the strength of western civilization and center to protect is not in the continent. Our policy makers seem to have underestimated the Russian rearming with stupid commentary from Obama and co. Our best strategy would be to wait it out and see if the chinks come up post Putin and take advantage then....I am not in agreement pulling out of ABM or INF. As an American, let me state this and do not take it personal....we can easily catch up in hypersonic tech, one will be naive to not think otherwise....we can based short ranged conventional hypersonic missiles on small tonnage boats in Bulgaria and Romania in Black sea. At the minimum it will put pressure on Russia...thoughts?

If they could have they would have. Since they didn't and thus is because they cant. US is behind China and Russia in this. Eventually they will catch up but won't matter much as Russian iads is being tuned to deal with Hypersonic so it won't matter much anymore anyway.

Mutual assured destruction is still in place.

southpark wrote:Europe by itself is not ready to confront Russia in an armed conflict without the US support with or without IADS. First time in their history, the strength of western civilization and center to protect is not in the continent. Our policy makers seem to have underestimated the Russian rearming with stupid commentary from Obama and co. Our best strategy would be to wait it out and see if the chinks come up post Putin and take advantage then....I am not in agreement pulling out of ABM or INF. As an American, let me state this and do not take it personal....we can easily catch up in hypersonic tech, one will be naive to not think otherwise....we can based short ranged conventional hypersonic missiles on small tonnage boats in Bulgaria and Romania in Black sea. At the minimum it will put pressure on Russia...thoughts?

Pressure works both ways

USA is far enough and safe enough from all this drama, has been forever but Europe is butt smack in the middle and they don't know how to play the game anymore, are not willing to risk any losses in the game or even remember why is it they are even playing for anyway

What that leaves is Russia and USA tucked away at relative safe distance from each other

While Russia may suck at Navy and no longer wish to fiddle with massive army, they got the whole missile thing down to art form and for the first time in their history they are actually looking after economy (they finally realized that they can improvise and brute-force everything)

Decades ago there would be possibility of direct contact warfare between the two but today when it's all about missiles (yes, USA can definitely catch up if not already) you will either have peace or extinction level war, middle ground is all but disappeared (I doubt we would even have time to see aerial combat should war happen)

Europe's role in all this has been reduced to hostage whipping boy sacrificial lamb: should USA push too far (unlikely since nobody is suicidal hopefully) parts of NATO-joined Europe will be roasted by Russia as a warning shot and USA will have option to either back down or take this to logical conclusion (MAD)

The thing is that finest generation and baby boomers are no longer majority of population in USA and nuclear war is not really popular among Facebook/Twitter crowd (there is no Starbucks or WiFi in fallout shelter)

So basically any actual war is non-starter (in both sides' preference) which leaves good old trolling and dickwaving as usual

As for after-Putin window of opportunity it doesn't really exist because while everyone over there has their own opinion on internal matters, when it comes to foreign policy everyone agrees on current approach and quite a few (dare I say majority) believe that Putin is way too soft about it

Next guy/gal will most likely be quite harsher

southpark wrote:Europe by itself is not ready to confront Russia in an armed conflict without the US support with or without IADS. First time in their history, the strength of western civilization and center to protect is not in the continent. Our policy makers seem to have underestimated the Russian rearming with stupid commentary from Obama and co. Our best strategy would be to wait it out and see if the chinks come up post Putin and take advantage then....I am not in agreement pulling out of ABM or INF. As an American, let me state this and do not take it personal....we can easily catch up in hypersonic tech, one will be naive to not think otherwise....we can based short ranged conventional hypersonic missiles on small tonnage boats in Bulgaria and Romania in Black sea. At the minimum it will put pressure on Russia...thoughts?

All NATO assets in the Black Sea are extremely vulnerable.. 

In the Crimea alone, Russia has Bastion-P complexes, multiple Kilo subs, frigates and missile boats armed with Kalibrs, now a Tu-22M3 regiment, Su-27SMs, Su-24Ms, the Utes uunderground missile complex - all of them with the range to take out any such small tonnage boats right in their harbours.

The Crimea also boasts no fewer than 4 S-400 battallions. It's really not the best place to overfly with a missile.

And even then, Moscow is a lot further away than 1000km from the Black Sea.

The US itself admits that its 10 years behind on the hypersonic cruise missile front. If they press it, they can do it in less - but what else can change during that time? Russia won't be standing still. They'll be working on their air defence network and naval capabilities further. Turkey may well leave NATO.

The Chinese won't attack Russia, or step into conflict with it. Why? It's a land of cheap resources, good technology and with a friendly government ready to sell such at a reasonable price.
That's just another neo-con delusion. On par with thinking that they can rip India's links with Russia apart and serve as a US bulwark against China by simply sweet-talking them and offering them some technology.

southpark wrote:Europe by itself is not ready to confront Russia in an armed conflict without the US support with or without IADS. First time in their history, the strength of western civilization and center to protect is not in the continent. Our policy makers seem to have underestimated the Russian rearming with stupid commentary from Obama and co. Our best strategy would be to wait it out and see if the chinks come up post Putin and take advantage then....I am not in agreement pulling out of ABM or INF. As an American, let me state this and do not take it personal....we can easily catch up in hypersonic tech, one will be naive to not think otherwise....we can based short ranged conventional hypersonic missiles on small tonnage boats in Bulgaria and Romania in Black sea. At the minimum it will put pressure on Russia...thoughts?

Thoughts? US should take care of US territory and get the f* out of Black Sea, that policy is complete madness and quite capable of getting us all killed. It is like Russian Navy massing forces in the Big Lakes for god's sake. And why on Earth are you always thinking in "putting pressure" on other countries instead of understanding their motives? Putting pressure beyond tirelessly attempting nuclear primacy? Don't you understand that Russia's strategy with hypersonic weapons is to get deterrence after US withdrew from ABM treaty? Do you think a country that had ca. 25 million killed in WWII and has such huge land borders to protect is searching for war? All they want is to earn money and develop their country, and war is the last thing they need for that. It is not that difficult to understand, it is the same everybody wants. But for Western elites such a landmass as Russia, so many resources and in such a crucial area mean that, without "containment" (aka foul play) Russia would completely destroy Western world rule and in fact get a good shot at primacy themselves. I don't want a Russian tyranny either but that is no excuse for trying to crush them in all ways possible. The rich and powerful love these games in which normal people have nothing to win and only get killed. It is immoral and terribly stupid and no single person outside of the elite should fall for it.

Besides I don't understand why to look always for conflict, always trying to find someone to win against. Nukes are here to stay and in fact are proliferating, so the time for these childish games is over. Time to accept other cultures and sit down to talk with them, say goodbye to unfair privileges and accept times changed. Forces of history are always stronger.

Please, stop falsely thinking this is about US "deterring" Russia from attacking you and that there is a certain "symmetry" or "balance" of aggression between US and other powers. Nobody is crazy enough to attack you, period. This notion that if you don't encroach on their borders and put a gun on their head they will unleash a world domination quest is so utterly stupid I cannot believe anybody falls for it. This is about some demented guys' getting their "full spectrum dominance" and duping population with fear, period. Until US people understands this very simple principle and accept they are not the heroes they think they are, we are all in grave danger. US has the right to exist, to be free, prosperous and respected. It has no right to avoid other countries from getting exactly the same. If they don't understand this we will end up dead. Peace is nothing but respecting the rights of the other people.

LMFS wrote:Thoughts? US should take care of US territory and get the f* out of Black Sea, that policy is complete madness and quite capable of getting us all killed. It is like Russian Navy massing forces in the Big Lakes for god's sake. And why on Earth are you always thinking in "putting pressure" on other countries instead of understanding their motives? Putting pressure beyond tirelessly attempting nuclear primacy? Don't you understand that Russia's strategy with hypersonic weapons is to get deterrence after US withdrew from ABM treaty? Do you think a country that had ca. 25 million killed in WWII and has such huge land borders to protect is searching for war? All they want is to earn money and develop their country, and war is the last thing they need for that. It is not that difficult to understand, it is the same everybody wants. But for Western elites such a landmass as Russia, so many resources and in such a crucial area mean that, without "containment" (aka foul play) Russia would completely destroy Western world rule and in fact get a good shot at primacy themselves. I don't want a Russian tyranny either but that is no excuse for trying to crush them in all ways possible. The rich and powerful love these games in which normal people have nothing to win and only get killed. It is immoral and terribly stupid and no single person outside of the elite should fall for it.

Besides I don't understand why to look always for conflict, always trying to find someone to win against. Nukes are here to stay and in fact are proliferating, so the time for these childish games is over. Time to accept other cultures and sit down to talk with them, say goodbye to unfair privileges and accept times changed. Forces of history are always stronger.

Please, stop falsely thinking this is about US "deterring" Russia from attacking you and that there is a certain "symmetry" or "balance" of aggression between US and other powers. Nobody is crazy enough to attack you, period. This notion that if you don't encroach on their borders and put a gun on their head they will unleash a world domination quest is so utterly stupid I cannot believe anybody falls for it. This is about some demented guys' getting their "full spectrum dominance" and duping population with fear, period. Until US people understands this very simple principle and accept they are not the heroes they think they are, we are all in grave danger. US has the right to exist, to be free, prosperous and respected. It has no right to avoid other countries from getting exactly the same. If they don't understand this we will end up dead. Peace is nothing but respecting the rights of the other people.

Very well said, but don't expect Muricans to get it... they are birthed with the Exceptionalist nipple in their mouths. Asking them to try looking at the world thru the eyes of others is utterly futile.

You are challenging the entire history of every powerful country and empire that existed. You should find the answers yourself on why powers do what they do...most of you live in those powers or allies of those powers...look at your own history, somewhere you destroyed some group of people and taken away their land, resources e.t.c....color it whichever way you feel good with it.

back to ss-26 and other new toys that Russia presented....I think we will counter them or negate them with like to like...in other words MAD will remain between us. To me, I am interested in seeing what Germany and France will come up to counter the SS-26 and its future derivatives as they are more of a threat to them than us. Anyone that thinks it will take decades for us to come up with a solution is not being realistic....whoever said that from our side is trying to pocket funds. It really depends on our threat analysis...we may not think it is serious enough for us to go running and find solutions or possibly already have next gen toys in pipeline that provide solutions...reason for us to be so confident or just bunch of morons acting stupid. For me as long as we spend money wisely, we have human resources and tech base to come up with counter solutions....interesting our industry is given a big challenge.

southpark wrote:You are challenging the entire history of every powerful country and empire that existed. You should find the answers yourself on why powers do what they do...most of you live in those powers or allies of those powers...look at your own history, somewhere you destroyed some group of people and taken away their land, resources e.t.c....color it whichever way you feel good with it.

back to ss-26 and other new toys that Russia presented....I think we will counter them or negate them with like to like...in other words MAD will remain between us. To me, I am interested in seeing what Germany and France will come up to counter the SS-26 and its future derivatives as they are more of a threat to them than us. Anyone that thinks it will take decades for us to come up with a solution is not being realistic....whoever said that from our side is trying to pocket funds. It really depends on our threat analysis...we may not think it is serious enough for us to go running and find solutions or possibly already have next gen toys in pipeline that provide solutions...reason for us to be so confident or just bunch of morons acting stupid. For me as long as we spend money wisely, we have human resources and tech base to come up with counter solutions....interesting our industry is given a big challenge.

As far as Russia does not develop ABM systems that are 100% effective, MAD is in place, what do you need to counter?

Wouldn't have it been cheaper and easier to keep the ABM treaty on the first place instead of playing this stupid game? The cost-free, immediate solution is for US government to call Russia and ask for renewal of ABM treaty and immediate negotiation of new START. But that is too easy and to rational and will not happen. And besides, US has depleted its credibility so nobody would believe in their good faith now.

As to my previous rant, just one detail: never before we had to deal with nuclear weapons. That changes all deterrence calculations, previous history of empires does not apply anymore and war needs to be avoided at all costs. I think we can agree on that.

Big_Gazza wrote: they are birthed with the Exceptionalist nipple in their mouths. Asking them to try looking at the world thru the eyes of others is utterly futile.

That is a sign of weakness in the "winner's" mindset I know. That is why are screwed

As far as Russia does not develop ABM systems that are 100% effective, MAD is in place, what do you need to counter?

Wouldn't have it been cheaper and easier to keep the ABM treaty on the first place instead of playing this stupid game? The cost-free, immediate solution is for US government to call Russia and ask for renewal of ABM treaty and immediate negotiation of new START. But that is too easy and to rational and will not happen. And besides, US has depleted its credibility so nobody would believe in their good faith now.

As to my previous rant, just one detail: never before we had to deal with nuclear weapons. That changes all deterrence calculations, previous history of empires does not apply anymore and war needs to be avoided at all costs. I think we can agree on that.

I do not disagree that our policy makers made wrong calculations in exiting ABM and INF as I think they were mostly in our favor and we could handle China differently (my personal opinion) but Putin himself said Russia will not let anyone have advantage over them and he is not wrong as that is his job for his country and so do we have our job as a lot of you claim here how superior Avangard, ss-26 and new toys are....that is what I meant countering.

You seem to have forgotten that nuclear weapons are indeed used not once but twice and we still have 1st use policy....you think they exist for decorations? Make no mistake, humans are very capable of using them....I think you make the waters muddy by bringing moral and ethical issues when clearly anyone living in first or second world countries at some point committed horrible crimes directly or indirectly...personal opinions stand at personal level. I am really puzzled with members on this forum to debate on the moral aspects of US as a power....aren't we here to debate on the weapons that kill people? Let's just think like Putin or other US president and not get emotional in every response (pick a decent one...we had some bad luck recently :-)

You do realise that Russia is not far away from its own ABM defence and your is now rendered ineffective.

It was foolish to start a missile race with Russia considering that they have a history of out developing you in such areas.

It will be interesting to see how the quoted range of both sides missiles change in the new legal environment.

southpark wrote:I do not disagree that our policy makers made wrong calculations in exiting ABM and INF as I think they were mostly in our favor and we could handle China differently (my personal opinion) but Putin himself said Russia will not let anyone have advantage over them and he is not wrong as that is his job for his country and so do we have our job as a lot of you claim here how superior Avangard, ss-26 and new toys are....that is what I meant countering.

This is a bit like talking to walls. Russia has no pre-emptive strike policy and their weapons are retaliatory. Therefore you have nothing to counter. Just stop trying to kill them, it is cheaper.

You seem to have forgotten that nuclear weapons are indeed used not once but twice and we still have 1st use policy....you think they exist for decorations? Make no mistake, humans are very capable of using them....I think you make the waters muddy by bringing moral and ethical issues when clearly anyone living in first or second world countries at some point committed horrible crimes directly or indirectly...personal opinions stand at personal level. I am really puzzled with members on this forum to debate on the moral aspects of US as a power....aren't we here to debate on the weapons that kill people? Let's just think like Putin or other US president and not get emotional in every response (pick a decent one...we had some bad luck recently :-)

I am sadly very aware humans are capable of using nukes. Sadly also aware of the null role morals play in modern society and how they became superfluous, but they are not. They are the basis for sustainable coexistence, unlike the endless arms race. BTW I have personally no interest in discussing weapons to kill people but to defend people. Both uses are a bit different. Also not to discuss about how US can "win" against Russia, this is not a game to me and I am frankly fed up of this need to satisfy the own ego by being "superior" to others. This is not what military is about.

If you want to discuss military technology, try making a concrete case with concrete threats, scenarios and countermeasures. What you wrote looked to me very generic and the most striking elements were the clearly counter-factual assumptions regarding the realities of US-Russian military missions, intent and balance of capabilities. This is BTW a constant in Western media "military analysis" in order to justify the own aggressive posture and the result is what we normally see: total incapacity to understand reality and predict developments.

LMFS wrote:
Russia has no pre-emptive strike policy and their weapons are retaliatory.

Well not yet but thoes monkeys in thier pentagonal zoo are really pushing it at this rate in a few years chemical and bio warheads will be brought back and promptly inserted into everything that will fit them not already containing a nuclear warhead.

I sincerely doubt that the loose policy of purely retaliatory use of nuclear weapons will remain at that point.