Europe being Finlandized via Germany and France?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And you haven't explained why Putin would tell the truth and abide by START after the US unilaterally repudiated the ABM treaty.

If he ditched it we would know.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And you still haven't explained where you got the 'single offensive sytem' other than out of your ass.

We have a triad: bombers, ICBM's, and submarines. The Russian air force is not capable of delivering a crippling first strike, because we would detect such an attack far in advance. The Russian navy is in no condition to deliver such a first strike, as I demonstrated earlier. That leaves their ICBM's. Can you count?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

If he ditched it we would know.

Like you knew the Soviets already had short range missiles in Cuba when your last hot-head touched off a near miss with Armageddon, yes?

A bit later, what did Tenant say? Something about a slam dunk? You place your faith in the supposed ability of the US intelligence community to know all?

Wake up, child!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Like you knew the Soviets already had short range missiles in Cuba when your last hot-head touched off a near miss with Armageddon, yes?

Are you comparing the current situation re: intelligence on Russia to the same situation over forty years ago? Think about that for a while, and what things might have been different then.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Wake up, child!

Join the 21st century.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


We have a triad: bombers, ICBM's, and submarines. The Russian air force is not capable of delivering a crippling first strike, because we would detect such an attack far in advance. The Russian navy is in no condition to deliver such a first strike, as I demonstrated earlier. That leaves their ICBM's. Can you count?

You've posted nothing to say that their boomers undersea are ineffective.

The article linked by LS mentions newer bombers.

Can you read as well as pull assertions out of your ass?

[Kuciwalker]

You've posted nothing to say that their boomers undersea are ineffective.

Reread the thread; it's only one page. I refuse to repost the evidence I've already given.

The article linked by LS mentions newer bombers.

So?

Can you read as well as pull assertions out of your ass?

You obviously can't read, as I've justified everything I said.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Are you comparing the current situation re: intelligence on Russia to the same situation over forty years ago? Think about that for a while, and what things might have been different then.

Actually, I'm going more on the 'slam dunk' case that Saddam had any weapons at all which turned out to be a huge pile of pooh.

You think the US intelligence community has a better grasp on whether Putin has 1,000 or 10,000 warheads?

There's this thing called overconfidence. You make the French look like Jewish bankers.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, I'm going more on the 'slam dunk' case that Saddam had any weapons at all which turned out to be a huge pile of pooh.

You think the US intelligence community has a better grasp on whether Putin has 1,000 or 10,000 warheads?

Yes. Obviously.

[Kuciwalker]

Not to mention that building a massive nuclear deterrent is slightly useless if you don't tell anyone.

[Kidlicious]

No one in the world has confidence in Russian weaponry or Russian military. I can't believe what I'm seeing here.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

You've posted nothing to say that their boomers undersea are ineffective.

Reread the thread; it's only one page. I refuse to repost the evidence I've already given.

The article linked by LS mentions newer bombers.

So?

Can you read as well as pull assertions out of your ass?

You obviously can't read, as I've justified everything I said.

So?

So where is this single threat?

The Russians have ICBMs, bombers current and future, and subs that are seaworthy and armed. When do the LA class fire? Before or after the Russian boomers lauch? Is the USN going to start WWIII because they think some old boats might fire?

Here's a clue, SLBMs go off, and then the boomers get sunk. That's the way this works. Good luck. You'll have 2 minutes to kiss your ass goodbye.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Not to mention that building a massive nuclear deterrent is slightly useless if you don't tell anyone.

You're assuming Russian psychology. You're assuming responses like you would have. 1st, large mistake. Your short-sightedness, or is it willful ignorance, is astounding, Kuci.

We are dealing with a country whose history could be the genesis for paranoia. Russia has been attacked, pillaged, and torn asunder by every major power this world has seen since the fall of Rome.

The people who live in the Kremlin don't look at the world the way you or I do. They are farther along the path of awareness of the consequences of losing than the French. They look at the world as a very hostile place where their country and people have had an an extremely rough time of it. The American Civil War? Sandbox tussle! Try having half your country experience Atlanta, on a more or less regular basis, the last time being just over 60 years ago.

Now they have power. They will use that power to defend themselves. Back them into corners, encroach on their periphery, go ahead. Poke a wounded bear and see what happens.

I hope to God you stick to physics or something else safe, like math in some dungeon of the American education system. The thought of such myopic views in dealing with a nation that is fully capable of extinguishing the life out of every single major population centre in the West and a good part more of the rest of the world gaining any currency in the public policy of the supposed last remaining superpower is quite frankly scarier than the prospect of walking along with Dante.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
So?

So where is this single threat?

...

Do I have to spell it out to you again?

Russian bombers are not capable of delivering a crippling first strike. They do not have Stealth, therefore we would detect them well before they could launch enough nukes to destroy our nuclear capabilities.

Russia has drastically cut down on the number of submarines, and plans to have as few as ten dedicated boomers when it's done restructuring. This is not sufficient to destroy our nuclear capabilities, even if we assume the US Navy is incapable of stopping any of them or detecting that they're moving into range of our coastline (giving us some warning).

Thus, Russia is left with it's ICBM's.

What the fuck is wrong with you that you can't count to three?

The Russians have ICBMs, bombers current and future, and subs that are seaworthy and armed. When do the LA class fire? Before or after the Russian boomers lauch? Is the USN going to start WWIII because they think some old boats might fire?

Here's a clue, SLBMs go off, and then the boomers get sunk. That's the way this works. Good luck. You'll have 2 minutes to kiss your ass goodbye.

So they launch but we enough warning to launch a counterstrike. Particularly since 20 submarines aren't about to take out every carrier group, every airbase, and every silo in the United States. Good job, you've demonstrated that their submarines cannot launch a crippling first strike, which was my point.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kidicious
No one in the world has confidence in Russian weaponry or Russian military. I can't believe what I'm seeing here.

Only a fool would discount them.

There seem to be plenty of fools in the United States.

That's ****ing scary.