Europe being Finlandized via Germany and France?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
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.

Bull ****. If the Russian psyche were this prone to launching an all-out nuclear attack in response to strategic pressure like we're applying, I'd never have been born.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Only a fool would discount them.

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

That's ****ing scary.

You're living 20 years in the past. The Russian conventional military is absolutely pathetic.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Only a fool would discount them.

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

That's ****ing scary.

NYE, I think that you are neglecting to see that influence (people's perceptions) is power on the world stage. Russia has severely lost that over the last 20 years. Maybe they are more powerfull militarily than people think they are, but that's not going to mean **** for them.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


...

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.

Here's a clue, son. I'll give it to you for free.

THE RUSSIANS DON'T GIVE A **** ABOUT YOUR RESPONSE IF THEY LAUNCH!

They are not stupid enough to think that they can avoid total destruction themselves. They have very well developed knowledge of the limits to avoid counter strikes, having had the ****ING WEAPONS FOR 60 YEARS THEMSELVES!

Stop this nonsense about knocking out the response. It hasn't been possible since the delepoment of the SLBM. Stop demonstrating your foolishness.

Russian bombers (that we know of) may well not be able to penetrate North American airspace. So what? Berlin and other European targets (like US airbases) are pretty close and recent events have shown that air defence in peacetime is not always so good. Ask the people who patched up the Pentagon about it.

North American targets would be hit by ICBM and SLBM. So what? You have a plan for stopping SLBMs and ICBMs with stealth? I thought not.

And since when is 10 boomers that carry enough warheads to blanket North American population centres not a concern?

Are you insane?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

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.

If they did want to launch a first strike, they'd probably like to use a couple of their 2,022 fighters (which can carry nuclear payloads), 227 bombers, and several hundred ICBMS in addition to their subs.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kidicious


NYE, I think that you are neglecting to see that influence (people's perceptions) is power on the world stage. Russia has severely lost that over the last 20 years. Maybe they are more powerfull militarily than people think they are, but that's not going to mean **** for them.

And that makes them more dangerous!

We're dealing with a nation that has been scorched twice in the last 100 years, 3 times in the last 200, and many times before that between periodic attacks by anyone who wanted to strut their stuff.

These people do not look at defence the way you or I do. Is that so difficult to understand?

Kennedy was willing to destroy the planet over missiles in Cuba. The Russians have put up with far worse, for far longer (missiles in Turkey). Now that their outer empire has collapsed, they are faced with increasing encroachment by the US and NATO. How long do you think they go before Ivan triggers their own Missile Crisis?

And yes, Kuci, I am old enough to have lived through the daily prospect of annihilation. I grew up in and live in a primary target. Being old is not a disadvantage in this debate. Your being a fool is a severe handicap.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Kidicious


NYE, I think that you are neglecting to see that influence (people's perceptions) is power on the world stage. Russia has severely lost that over the last 20 years. Maybe they are more powerfull militarily than people think they are, but that's not going to mean **** for them.

Their military is hardly as crippled as you make it out to seem. But if it were, what would the Russian leadership rely on even more heavily to preserve their sense of security?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by notyoueither


And that makes them more dangerous!

We're dealing with a nation that has been scorched twice in the last 100 years, 3 times in the last 200, and many times before that between periodic attacks by anyone who wanted to strut their stuff.

These people do not look at defence the way you or I do. Is that so difficult to understand?

Kennedy was willing to destroy the planet over missiles in Cuba. The Russians have put up with far worse, for far longer (missiles in Turkey). Now that their outer empire has collapsed, they are faced with increasing encroachment by the US and NATO. How long do you think they go before Ivan triggers their own Missile Crisis?

And yes, Kuci, I am old enough to have lived through the daily prospect of annihilation. I grew up in and live in a primary target. Being old is not a disadvantage in this debate. Your being a fool is a severe handicap.

Ok, I missed that. I thought the argument was about something else.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by LordShiva
If they did want to launch a first strike, they'd probably like to use a couple of their 2,022 fighters (which can carry nuclear payloads), 227 bombers, and several hundred ICBMS in addition to their subs.

The fighters and bombers we'd see early enough to give warning, which puts us back in MAD territory. The ICBM's are the only system capable of crippling our ability to retaliate before we can retaliate (though even that's questionable). Thus Russia is only as strategically important as any other nuclear power with significant numbers of ICBM's.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Bull ****. If the Russian psyche were this prone to launching an all-out nuclear attack in response to strategic pressure like we're applying, I'd never have been born.

They've never been subjected to the pressures on them now since they gained nuclear weapons.

They had a large buffer until the 90's. They no longer have that buffer. Instead they see more and more encroachment by NATO and the the US.

They are warning us. We ignore them at our peril.

I'm not saying we have to do whatever they say. I am saying we have to deal with them. The missile shield in Eastern Europe is obviously not going to effect their ability to annihilate the West. Ignoring their concerns is simply going to make it more likely that a crisis erupts that could well lead to the launching from which there is no recovery.

Easy to understand? I fear not since it seems beyond your comprehension and you are supposedly one of the best and brightest. God help us all.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Their military is hardly as crippled as you make it out to seem.

Their army isn't that much larger than the Bundeswehr, and not as well trained or equipped. They are about as important as any of the other major European powers, which is my point.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And yes, Kuci, I am old enough to have lived through the daily prospect of annihilation. I grew up in and live in a primary target. Being old is not a disadvantage in this debate.

Hell yes it is. Your generation was wrong. The world did not end and the Soviet Union collapsed of its own accord, and by now Russia is no great power.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


The fighters and bombers we'd see early enough to give warning, which puts us back in MAD territory. The ICBM's are the only system capable of crippling our ability to retaliate before we can retaliate (though even that's questionable). Thus Russia is only as strategically important as any other nuclear power with significant numbers of ICBM's.

Which is none other, since no other power has the quantity and quality of weapons to be able to match the American ability to annihilate life on this planet, except Russia.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Here's a clue, son. I'll give it to you for free.

THE RUSSIANS DON'T GIVE A **** ABOUT YOUR RESPONSE IF THEY LAUNCH!

Hell yes they do. Even if they're as crazy as you think, they obviously think it matters just a little bit if they die in the end.

They are not stupid enough to think that they can avoid total destruction themselves. They have very well developed knowledge of the limits to avoid counter strikes, having had the ****ING WEAPONS FOR 60 YEARS THEMSELVES!

Stop this nonsense about knocking out the response. It hasn't been possible since the delepoment of the SLBM. Stop demonstrating your foolishness.

I'm foolish because you've agreed with me that they can't launch a crippling first strike?

[q]Russian bombers (that we know of) may well not be able to penetrate North American airspace. So what? Berlin and other European targets (like US airbases) are pretty close and recent events have shown that air defence in peacetime is not always so good. Ask the people who patched up the Pentagon about it.

North American targets would be hit by ICBM and SLBM. So what? You have a plan for stopping SLBMs and ICBMs with stealth? I thought not.

You think 1 + 1 = 3? I thought not. What the **** are you talking about?

And since when is 10 boomers that carry enough warheads to blanket North American population centres not a concern?

Do you understand what I'm saying at all?

Are you insane?

Are you really this dense or just trolling?

[Kuciwalker]

My claim is this: Russia is strategically no more important than any of the other nuclear powers with ICBM's. Thus I demonstrate that their strategic abilities aren't powerful enough to eliminate the MAD dynamic.