Beware what you wish for: Russia is ready for war

Of course we will.. this is the whole point of Mutually Assured Destruction "MAD". We will be wiped from existence as well.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Put the US fleet with an aggressive stance anywhere near Russian soil and it will be sunk. US has no good defense against Russian anti ship missiles which are the best in the world by far. If all else fails, tactical nukes will not.

Anyone with brains pays attention. China is not even close to Russia in terms of military might. China buys technology from Russia as do many other countries. I doubt that China or Russia and the US will be going to war anytime soon.

The world has changed. Used to be that when a nations economy tanked they would attack their neighbor and take theirs stuff.

Things are no longer simple. One can not realistically attack a country equipped with significant nuclear firepower.
Let 'em whine. They will pipe down when they see that no one is paying attention to their whining.

China is much more dangerous, because it is actually conceivable that there could be war between them and us

 

Of course. War is all Russia has any interest in. At a gene level.



​

The question is, does the rest of the world want a nation that is "forever at war" to continue to exist?



​

 

Please quote the post where I ever said anything that is even remotely close to what you just claimed I said. I'll wait.

By the way, some of us have to live in the real world and u set stand that peace is nothing more then the absence of war.

 

Racist much?​

 

How exactly is that racist? I have some Russian in my genetic history, and I don't think it racist. Mother Russia's ambitions have always exceeded her abilities. Nationalism has always been a big tool for Russian autocrats who have used it to secure their power. That's not racism, that's a fact.

Nationalism requires an enemy. For Hitler, it was the Jews and others who be wrongly portrayed as subhuman. For Putina, it is the US. It keeps his subjects compliant. It's a human trait which has often been abused by autocrats.

 

And for Americans it is Russia.
You must fear Putin or be un-American.

We don't give them that choice.

And that's why we are forever at war. To keep the rest of the world in check.

 

In other words...Russia cares about the rest of the world as long as it does what they want. If not they try to MAKE them.

 

You believe the people of Russia are a separate species? *shrug*

A nation that takes pride in being at "war forever" is a problem for the rest of the world. If you choose to defend that destructive behavior as a cultural eccentricity or something that needs to be accepted to promote "racial" tolerance ... well good luck with that argument.




​

 

Russia is victim to it's geography and history. While the Western World was colonizing the world forming client states, it was pushing deep East conquering and annexing multiple ethnicities. The ethnicities were never completely wiped out like the US did to the Native Americans and have never completely assimilated like multiple ethnicities in the United States. If you go into Caucaus and Siberia, you will find the culture there to be uniquely different. Russia is afraid of these peoples declaring independence(Chechnya for example) and needs both a strong military and intelligence services to keep everything together. Another problem is Russia's massive size. Transportation costs across Russia are very very expensive to these very scarcely populated areas(80 percent of Russia live on the Western side). Russia needs a massive centralization to make this entire system work. Also the political turmoil was rampant after the fall of Communism. There were Communists in the Russian government as well as Pro-Western guys, a lot of them corrupt Oligharchs. Putin's "United Russia" centered around Nationalism of the state, to be proud of all Russian history both Imperial and Soviet as unity. Russia still needs it's vast territories of natural gas and oil to keep Russia global power and isn't willing to break it apart on ethnic divides. His policies focus on state oversight and economic moderation(with nationalism of course), unlike the Conservative and Liberal parties we see in the US or Europe.

This is not to excuse all the wrongdoings of Russia. But you see why Russia never experienced any sort of Freedom and Democracy compared to Europe.

 

I know exactly what I am talking about.

Not likely. If Russia were to dare, the entire Russian Navy (what little of it there still is) would very quickly be sunk afterwards.

Not this silly anti-ship missile hysteria again. Please.

Tell me, how will these Russian anti-ship missiles prevent American stealth bombers from showering every surface ship in the Russian Navy with American anti-ship missiles?

How will these Russian anti-ship missiles prevent American attack submarines from torpedoing every submarine in the Russian Navy?

America has a brand new set of tactical nukes that have such unprecedented accuracy that they can destroy Russian military targets with little collateral damage.

If Russia chooses to have a tactical nuclear war with the US, we're ready for them.

Those of us with brains will not do much more than make fun of Russia's silly whining.

Russia has no military might at all. China is positioned to be a significant threat to the US military.

Russia, of course not. They are militarily insignificant.

There is a serious risk of war with China though.

So much for the "doom of the US Navy" at the hands of Russian anti-ship missiles.

 

Anti-ship missiles(seaskimming type) and cruise missiles are pretty effective against Cruisers and Destroyers since those targets are fixed to the sea and have trouble spotting a low flying target due to radar horizon limmits. They need CIWs or RAM to stop it the last moments as they enter the horizon. However against aircraft carriers, since airplanes fly so high, they can spot incoming targets flying low much faster, and kill them with their AMRAAM missiles, or by guiding cruiser based missiles like the SM-6(which can kill even hypersonic targets like tactical ballistic missiles).

However, the only exception is the Chinese with their DF-21D ballistic missiles. Since it's anti ship warhead mounted on a medium range ballistic missile, it can fly very far outside the range of operating aircraft, and since its a strategic ballistic missile that flies over Mach 10 and maneuvers so hard in terminal phase, it can only be intercepted by High tier missile defense like AEGIS SM-3, in fairly short time. The reason why USA and Russia don't use ballistic missile anti-ship systems is because Medium range and Intermediate Range ballistic missiles were banned under their treaties.

Tactical nukes are more inefficient than you think they are. US planned to use tactical nukes in Vietnam once, however it was studied they had little effect besides bad PR and retaliation from the Soviets. The problem is most nukes blast radius is the massive heat fireball that burns your skin, which most military equipment is designed to protect against, and some of the shockwave can probably be absorbed. Directs hits are what that are deadly which are a few kms apart. Remember most modern troops don't march shoulder to shoulder but are spread out among fronts. A tactical nukes is going to have similar effect as a storm of bombs for a tac nuke in Vietnam will only kill a few Vietcong that were spread out. That is why nukes are best against strategic targets that fixed like cities and bases to be effective.

Whether nuclear war does escalate depends on the scale. The Soviet Union and China did fight a war once, were the Soviets did win tactically and strategically not through nukes but with conventional forces, however China did not retliate with their arsenal. The fear is limited exchange may trigger accidental full blown nuclear war.

 

By remaining undetected to a navy with a very poor track record of sub detection.
By being able to both detect and shoot down US stealth technology.

If your over confidence is anything to go by, you've lost already.

 

Whether that happens or not depends if the Russian sub can defeat the numerous US subs operating tens of miles away protecting the Carrier Strike Group, rather than the Carrier's Anti-Submarine detection systems

Not efficiently. To detect stealth at long ranges you need VHF or UHF low frequency radars, which are too inaccurate for fire control, and you would need the enemy to get very close. The Serbs studied American flight paths and were able to down an F-117 this way, however you have to be very lucky not to be spotted or enemy not moving into range(F-117 lacks radar and RWR btw). Stealth is here to stay, even in Russia, as proven by PAK FA.

 

Not very likely.

Russia has no ability to detect or shoot down any stealth bombers.

No overconfidence. Russia really is a has-been power. We would have little problem smashing their dilapidated military.

 

A Russian sub only has to get within 1500 miles of a carrier.
Exactly how many submarines did you think you had? 1500 per carrier?

Plus Americans can't hunt subs for toffee. Dream on. Chinese rust buckets defeat you.

Stealth is entirely detectable well inside missile ranges.
It may give you the chance to detect an enemy while undetected, so you could get the opportunity to run if out gunned... but otherwise, what can it be used for? Stand off cruise missile launches?
That or just regular plane stuff.
Stealth is much reduced from it's heyday. They went as far with it as they could and have rowed back.

 

VHF radar is also trivially easy to jam or spoof. Our electronic warfare guys would have the Russians expending all their weapons shooting at ghost signals while our planes sailed by unnoticed.

But most importantly, what limited flawed ability VHF radar does have, only works on fighter-sized craft. Stealth bombers are invisible to VHF radar.

 

So? That is beyond torpedo range. Cruise missiles are typically very easily spotted by aircraft since aircraft fly high and can kill them since most cruise missiles fly slowly. A cruise missiles biggest strength is it's low flying capabilities which negated against an aircraft carrier.

As I said...through low frequency radars(VHF, UHF, L-band). Which cannot guide missiles

If you look at US, Russia, China...their military doctrines are similar. They use stealth aircraft, carriers, VHF radars , antiship missiles....I don't know what is your guys obsession with which weapon is better than another(apples vs oranges comparisons) when all use each type.

 

Our attack submarines will be quite lethal against Russian subs if they are ever turned loose in a shooting war.

Stealth fighters can be detected by VHF radar, but not with enough accuracy to actually guide a weapon to that stealth fighter, and only if for some reason we are not electronically overriding that VHF radar with false signals.

Stealth bombers remain invisible to all radar.

Wrong. Stealth bombers remain untouchable, and Mr. Obama recently handed Northrop Grumman a $80 billion check for a new fleet of 100 stealth bombers.

Obviously these haven't been built yet, but we still have the 20 that were built earlier.

 

Mainly due to B-2 Bomber's size to negate the Long-Wavelength. The reason why VHF radars using WWII technology can spot stealth is due to it's size and wavelength in meters vs aircraft size.

 

Exactly. If Russia and the US fired 10 percent of their hydrogen bombs, it would be the end of humanity. Up until recently, the US may not have liked Russia, but we gave them the required respect. Today, we poke our thumbs in their eyes, whistling past the graveyard. That is where neocons and other nuts have taken us.

Russia has every right to feel surrounded, to feel threatened, and to get ready to defend themselves. We are waging economic war on them, by the intentional drop in oil prices, to go after Russia and Venezuela. Drive their backs to the walls, threaten their existence, and with nothing to lose, desperate nations have many times gone all in. And our neocons are too irrational too filled with their own egos. Which makes them a great danger. Stupidity is always dangerous.

Western banking and business interests want unbridled access to the Ukraine. These interests are back by the US and parts of Europe. Russia does not want western control so close to home, and remember Ukraine is mostly Russian.

 

I think you morons are longing for the good old cold war stalemate days instead of todays messy asymmetric war.

 

No, it was worse back then. Reagan called the Soviet Union the "evil empire"

 

Agreed.

- - - Updated - - -

While I don't deny their right to feel whatever they want, it's their own fault that they are getting treated this way. If they weren't invading country after country with future plans to invade NATO, we wouldn't be moving our forces east to guard against them.

Oh the horror. The thought of a sovereign country choosing to trade freely with the outside world.... It's just too terrible to contemplate.

/sarcasm

Ukraine belongs to the Ukrainians.

 

Please do some research before you post such gibberish........

 

I find it utterly bizarre that Toggle Almendro can't seem to get his head around that part. Answer this Toggle Almendro - I'm certain you know what MAD means but are you prepared to risk it? A 'yes' or a 'no' will be enough.