Russia snubs West

[JK8]

North Korea maybe, West?
Lets see, Israel, US, UK, Germany, Poland, Georgia, Japan etc. The list will go on, for both sides. The rogue nations that support terrorists and their terror will obviously be on the other side.

The Germans were hit hard in the past 2 WW, I think they should stay out of WW3 or carry on where they left off...
Israel and the US might be alone.... then its game on, the 2 most powerful nuclear countries up against the world!

 

[StrongTurd]

I don't believe a word of this. They had less nukes than the US to being with (despite the US decreasing their arsenal), I doubt many of them are still in active service. It takes a massive military budget to maintain these sites, something Russia could not do during the 90s.

I would like to understand how you believe the Russian ICMBs are way most advanced than US technology. The US has advanced weaponry that has yet to be unveiled on the world; their research and development is something to be believed!

Dude, you can believe whatever you want. Don't let the facts get in your way. Here's the numbers for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#_note-2

Here's a very nice discussion about this subject:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7192

"The SS-27 can currently strike any target within the continental United States and the placement of SS-NX-30 missiles would enable worldwide deployment. The placement of such advanced missiles on modern submarines would make it nearly impossible to successfully prevent a missile launch, while current ABM technology is insufficient to prevent its successful impact."

 

[StrongTurd]

Oh, and here's a nice picture if you don't like reading:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg/608px-US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg.png

 

[JK8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#_note-2

They have the old SA flag...
We had nukes in the 80s

 

[StrongTurd]

They have the old SA flag...
We had nukes in the 80s

Yes, the old SA had nukes; the new SA doesn't. Hence the old flag.

 

[JK8]

Yes, the old SA had nukes; the new SA doesn't. Hence the old flag.

A justified reason I can accept!

 

[TheHiveMind]

Some Western European countries including Germany had started voicing their concerns about US nukes in their countries before this even started.
They state that the nukes are a safety risk and are not well maintained. They probably also believe that housing the nukes makes them an immediate Russian target, in a war that is not theirs. They have everything to lose. Also there are some European countries who are happy to house nukes for the US, seeing as though that is their perceived protection, the weaker countries are a prime example. Will be interesting to see how this unfolds and who backs who. America has many bases in Western Europe and nearly 500 nukes in the region.

 

[semiautomatix]

Dude, you can believe whatever you want. Don't let the facts get in your way. Here's the numbers for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#_note-2

Here's a very nice discussion about this subject:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7192

Uh huh. I also believe everything Robert Mugabe and Thabo Mbeki tell me about there being no crisis in Zimbabwe.

These are what Russia is reporting. Most of them have fallen into disrepair/been sold/are missing. The Russian Federation isn't know for their unfaltering honesty.

Moscow will continue to devote scarce resources to maintaining its nuclear forces. Nevertheless, the aging of Russia's strategic systems and Putin's military reform plan to shift resources to the general purpose forces probably will result in Russia having fewer than 2,000 strategic warheads by 2015. (www.cia.gov)

Weapons-grade and weapons-usable nuclear materials have been stolen from some Russian institutes. We assess that undetected smuggling has occurred, although we do not know the extent or magnitude of such thefts. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the total amount of material that could have been diverted over the last 10 years. (www.cia.gov)

Until recently, one of Russia's highest military priorities has been the deployment of its most modern ICBM, the SS-27/Topol'-M. Twenty single-warhead SS-27s were deployed by the end of 1999. Russia planned to deploy ten additional missiles by the end of 2000, but only half were deployed. Deputy Prime Minister Klebanov said last October that Russia would deploy a minimum of six missiles annually over the next decade. (www.cia.gov)

Today, Russia has about 3,500 warheads based on heavy bombers and sea- and land-based missiles. (http://www.foreignaffairs.org)

Sounds very much to me like a country incapable of having over 8000 operable nuclear weapons.

Have a look here for alternate figures:

http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Nuclear_powers

 

[JK8]

I believed Iraq when they said they dont have any WMDs, that was an oil war...
I dont believe Iran, when they say they dont have any WMDs...

 

[semiautomatix]

Some Western European countries including Germany had started voicing their concerns about US nukes in their countries before this even started.
They state that the nukes are a safety risk and are not well maintained. They probably also believe that housing the nukes makes them an immediate Russian target, in a war that is not theirs. They have everything to lose. Also there are some European countries who are happy to house nukes for the US, seeing as though that is their perceived protection, the weaker countries are a prime example. Will be interesting to see how this unfolds and who backs who. America has many bases in Western Europe and nearly 500 nukes in the region.

Well Poland remains a Russian target anyway. Better the devil you know, eh? So what do they have to lose?

 

[d0b33]

I was watching RT yesterday and it's like FOX News for the left

Had the guy from Prisonplanet and Infowars on for a phone interview and he was going on about the military industrial complex Tin-foil hat time!

The RT presenter just asked 2 questions and was happy to see the guy go on about the U.S for so long.

 

[semiautomatix]

I believed Iraq when they said they dont have any WMDs, that was an oil war...
I dont believe Iran, when they say they dont have any WMDs...

I do concur.

Unless the US was basing their Iraqi invasion decision on the fact that they still had the invoices.

 

[TheHiveMind]

Well Poland remains a Russian target anyway. Better the devil you know, eh? So what do they have to lose?

Yep, Poland has less options than everyone else. They are basically forced to side with someone.

 

[StrongTurd]

Sounds very much to me like a country incapable of having over 8000 operable nuclear weapons.

Um, I don't get what you're trying to say. You're saying that the Russians only have 3500 strategic nukes (despite all the evidence that I posted to the contrary). Well, considering that you only need about 150 warheads to render the USA ungovernable (according to a study done in the 80s), then what's your point? That Russia can only blow up the USA 20 times over and not 50 times?

Does it really matter? Whichever way you look at it, the Russians have got the power to destroy all civilisation on earth (even if one uses your numbers) many times over.

 

[semiautomatix]

Um, I don't get what you're trying to say. You're saying that the Russians only have 3500 strategic nukes (despite all the evidence that I posted to the contrary). Well, considering that you only need about 150 warheads to render the USA ungovernable (according to a study done in the 80s), then what's your point? That Russia can only blow up the USA 20 times over and not 50 times?

So what's your point then? The US also has more than 150 nuclear warheads - you were the one that felt having more nukes made you more powerful.

And those links for 3500 strategic nukes (THAT ARE STILL OPERABLE, I.E. NOT FALLEN INTO SUCH A BAD STATE THAT THEY ARE USELESS): the number is from the US government. Not Wikipedia.

Does it really matter? Whichever way you look at it, the Russians have got the power to destroy all civilisation on earth (even if one uses your numbers) many times over.

*sigh*. I know that, please don't make me repeat myself. But not the ability to proliferate a cold war.

 

[StrongTurd]

So what's your point then? The US also has more than 150 nuclear warheads - you were the one that felt having more nukes made you more powerful.

And those links for 3500 strategic nukes (THAT ARE STILL OPERABLE, I.E. NOT FALLEN INTO SUCH A BAD STATE THAT THEY ARE USELESS): the number is from the US government. Not Wikipedia.



*sigh*. I know that, please don't make me repeat myself. But not the ability to proliferate a cold war.

The number of nuclear warheads in the Russian arsenal (as well at the US's) that I posted is beyond reproach because those countries are subject to various nuclear arms limitation treaties and the numbers were independently verified.

Sorry, but I've got work to do. This will be my last post on this subject. It is never easy to argue with someone that does not have an open mind. In my case I'm not letting my prejudices cloud my judgement. Hell, if I get offered a geeen card I'll be on the next plane out of here. I'd love to stay in the USA. I'm just realistic enough to understand that Russia controls a more fearsome nuclear stockpile than any other country on earth. They are not to be messed with.

 

[JK8]

The number of nuclear warheads in the Russian arsenal (as well at the US's) that I posted is beyond reproach because those countries are subject to various nuclear arms limitation treaties and the numbers were independently verified.

Sorry, but I've got work to do. This will be my last post on this subject. It is never easy to argue with someone that does not have an open mind. In my case I'm not letting my prejudices cloud my judgement. Hell, if I get offered a geeen card I'll be on the next plane out of here. I'd love to stay in the USA. I'm just realistic enough to understand that Russia controls a more fearsome nuclear stockpile than any other country on earth. They are not to be messed with.

I agree with the ST lover!

If you have 5 bullets in your gun and I have 3, someones going to win but they equally dangerous...

 

[icyrus]

The number of nuclear warheads in the Russian arsenal (as well at the US's) that I posted is beyond reproach because those countries are subject to various nuclear arms limitation treaties and the numbers were independently verified.

Sorry, but I've got work to do. This will be my last post on this subject. It is never easy to argue with someone that does not have an open mind. In my case I'm not letting my prejudices cloud my judgement. Hell, if I get offered a geeen card I'll be on the next plane out of here. I'd love to stay in the USA. I'm just realistic enough to understand that Russia controls a more fearsome nuclear stockpile than any other country on earth. They are not to be messed with.

Their nuclear weapons aren't really a good indication of their military might as they will never use them.

Nuclear weapons are a formidable destructive tool but as soon as your enemy has an arsenal comparable to yours they become useless.

 

[semiautomatix]

The number of nuclear warheads in the Russian arsenal (as well at the US's) that I posted is beyond reproach because those countries are subject to various nuclear arms limitation treaties and the numbers were independently verified.

Sorry, but I've got work to do. This will be my last post on this subject. It is never easy to argue with someone that does not have an open mind. In my case I'm not letting my prejudices cloud my judgement. Hell, if I get offered a geeen card I'll be on the next plane out of here. I'd love to stay in the USA. I'm just realistic enough to understand that Russia controls a more fearsome nuclear stockpile than any other country on earth. They are not to be messed with.

If its on Wikipedia, its gospel right? That, my friend, is the definition of close minded. Don't point fingers if you can't stand four pointing back at you.

But you're right, why should I believe the CIA above Wikipedia, what do they honestly know?

Btw: note, not once did I state that Russia did not have 8000 nuclear warheads. I did state that of those, only around 3500 are actually viable as WMDs due to many falling into disrepair. Are you open minded about that possibility? But it seems this open mindedness you so value does not extent to you, either.

 

[semiautomatix]

Their nuclear weapons aren't really a good indication of their military might as they will never use them.

Nuclear weapons are a formidable destructive tool but as soon as your enemy has an arsenal comparable to yours they become useless.

I think that is the point in question. Regardless of whether I am right or wrong any war is going to be won by conventional means. As such, I hardly believe Russia is in any way capable of waging a war (even a cold one) with the USA.