Islamic nutcases liquidated by the Russian 58th Army today!

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-10-10 01:19am

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:With no chances of defeating a real military, one wonders why the hell these people try to fight in the first place.

Because the first time around theydid win.

Also keep in mind that as many as 200,000 civilians have been killed in this conflict since 1994, some ethnic Russian but the majority are Chechen. Thats going to make anyone bitter and with good reason.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-10-10 01:44am

Sea Skimmer wrote: Also keep in mind that as many as 200,000 civilians have been killed in this conflict since 1994, some ethnic Russian but the majority are Chechen. Thats going to make anyone bitter and with good reason.

Oh booo hooohooohooo....

Uncle JOE would have had the entire place deported to Siberia by now...
so they have it rather easy...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-10-10 01:48am

MKSheppard wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote: Also keep in mind that as many as 200,000 civilians have been killed in this conflict since 1994, some ethnic Russian but the majority are Chechen. Thats going to make anyone bitter and with good reason.
Oh booo hooohooohooo....

Uncle JOE would have had the entire place deported to Siberia by now...
so they have it rather easy...

I like to see him try with the current Russian armed forces and economy.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-10-10 01:53am

Heh if Stalin was in charge right now he'd be busy rebuilding the Red Army (no matter the cost, of course)- and wouldn't 'try it' until the rebuilding was complete.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-10-10 01:53am

Sea Skimmer wrote: I like to see him try with the current Russian armed forces and economy.

It isn't THAT hard to herd civilians into trains to take them to Siberia....

Just dump them in the middle of siberia and force them to build
a prison camp for themselves first... Not that much of a drain on
the economy and armed forces if you're using STALINIST methods.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-10-10 02:40am

MKSheppard wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote: I like to see him try with the current Russian armed forces and economy.
It isn't THAT hard to herd civilians into trains to take them to Siberia....

Just dump them in the middle of siberia and force them to build
a prison camp for themselves first... Not that much of a drain on
the economy and armed forces if you're using STALINIST methods.

It is when the only working railline is busy hauling away broken tanks and gets blown up on an hourly basis. Damn engines have to have reactive armor to avoide being disabled by RPG strikes.
Not to mention the whole "armed resistance" thing killing your men, or the half dozen other areas ready to break away and the delceration of war by NATO, the Ukraine, Iran and the former central asian republics and a couple others.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-10-10 07:51am

I totally disagree. No way any of those countries would give two shits about Chechnya- and come on we're talking Stalin. Who'd go to war for them, against him (and all of Russia- cult of personality combined with masterful nationalistic propaganda about Mother Russia)

Great Patriotic War II: Uncle Joe's return.

Oh and Ukraine would be the first country to be forcibly re-intergrated into the USSR.

NATO would be insane to declare war on Russia. That's just suicide.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-10-10 04:19pm

Vympel wrote:I totally disagree. No way any of those countries would give two shits about Chechnya- and come on we're talking Stalin. Who'd go to war for them, against him (and all of Russia- cult of personality combined with masterful nationalistic propaganda about Mother Russia)

Great Patriotic War II: Uncle Joe's return.

Oh and Ukraine would be the first country to be forcibly re-intergrated into the USSR.

NATO would be insane to declare war on Russia. That's just suicide.

The West went to war over far lesser crimes in the former Yugoslavia, several time in fact.

Excalty, we are talking about Stalin, a return of a hard core communist goverment headed by him would result in war,very quickly. It would not be suicide for the west, but rather for Russia. The American heavy forces in Germany could defeat the entire Russian army currently, and the Ukraine on its own could hold them.

Given Russians lack of a effective nulcear detterent, less then 200 warheads and almost all on bombers, theres not a lot of reason to hold back.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-10-10 11:51pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
The West went to war over far lesser crimes in the former Yugoslavia, several time in fact.

Nope. If it was for crimes how come they haven't done anything about the crimes in China, or Turkey? In both cases, it's not in the national interest. Same with Russia.

Excalty, we are talking about Stalin, a return of a hard core communist goverment headed by him would result in war,very quickly. It would not be suicide for the west, but rather for Russia. The American heavy forces in Germany could defeat the entire Russian army currently, and the Ukraine on its own could hold them.

Nuclear deterrent.

Given Russians lack of a effective nulcear detterent, less then 200 warheads and almost all on bombers, theres not a lot of reason to hold back.

What in the world are you talking about? Russia's nuclear deterrent currently consists of thousands of warheads, not 200 mostly based on bombers ... where do you get your info?

ICBM force:

360 RT-2PM Topol road mobile ICBMs (360 warheads)- SS-25 SICKLE
40 RT-2PM2 Topol-M silo/road mobile ICBMs (40 warheads)- SS-27
204 R-36M heavy ICBMs- the infamous SS-18 SATAN (almost 2000 warheads, although only the Mod 4 and Mod 5 version have 10, the Mod 6 has a single vehicle rated at 20MT )
170 UR-100N ICBMs- SS-19 STILETTO (one or 6 MIRVs depending on the Mod)
46 RT-23 ICBMs- silo-based and rail-mobile SS-24 SCALPEL (460 warheads)

SSBN force
3 Typhoons in service, with one currently having emerged from an extensive refit for testing of the next generation Bulava SLBM (600 warheads)
7 Delta IVs in service, one currently in refit (4-10 warheads on 16 SLBMs each, so 448 to 1,170 warheads)
4 (maybe 5) Delta IIIs (3-7 MIRVs on 16 SLBMs each not taking into account that ssome of the force refitted with the Delta IV SLBM, so 192 to 448)

Strategic Bomber force:
18 Tu-160 BLACKJACK bombers with 12 AS-15 KENT ALCMs
89 (68 deployed) Tu-95MS BEAR-H6/16 bombers with 6/16 AS-15 KENT ALCMs

You can go to nti.org for much more exact numbers- but they are in line with mine. Over 3,000 for the ICBM force, 1,000-2,000 for the SLBM force depending on how many MIRVs they've got, and 626 for the bomber force (as of 2001- nti.org)

Lack of a deterrent indeed

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-10-11 12:40am

A single bomb is a deterent. In only takes 1 bomb to totally fuck things up.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-10-11 12:45am

Especially in New York City. It would be 9-11 thousands of times over.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-10-11 01:28am

Vympel wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
The West went to war over far lesser crimes in the former Yugoslavia, several time in fact.
Nope. If it was for crimes how come they haven't done anything about the crimes in China, or Turkey? In both cases, it's not in the national interest. Same with Russia.

Excalty, we are talking about Stalin, a return of a hard core communist goverment headed by him would result in war,very quickly. It would not be suicide for the west, but rather for Russia. The American heavy forces in Germany could defeat the entire Russian army currently, and the Ukraine on its own could hold them.
Nuclear deterrent.

Given Russians lack of a effective nulcear detterent, less then 200 warheads and almost all on bombers, theres not a lot of reason to hold back.
What in the world are you talking about? Russia's nuclear deterrent currently consists of thousands of warheads, not 200 mostly based on bombers ... where do you get your info?

ICBM force:

360 RT-2PM Topol road mobile ICBMs (360 warheads)- SS-25 SICKLE
40 RT-2PM2 Topol-M silo/road mobile ICBMs (40 warheads)- SS-27
204 R-36M heavy ICBMs- the infamous SS-18 SATAN (almost 2000 warheads, although only the Mod 4 and Mod 5 version have 10, the Mod 6 has a single vehicle rated at 20MT )
170 UR-100N ICBMs- SS-19 STILETTO (one or 6 MIRVs depending on the Mod)
46 RT-23 ICBMs- silo-based and rail-mobile SS-24 SCALPEL (460 warheads)

SSBN force
3 Typhoons in service, with one currently having emerged from an extensive refit for testing of the next generation Bulava SLBM (600 warheads)
7 Delta IVs in service, one currently in refit (4-10 warheads on 16 SLBMs each, so 448 to 1,170 warheads)
4 (maybe 5) Delta IIIs (3-7 MIRVs on 16 SLBMs each not taking into account that ssome of the force refitted with the Delta IV SLBM, so 192 to 448)

Strategic Bomber force:
18 Tu-160 BLACKJACK bombers with 12 AS-15 KENT ALCMs
89 (68 deployed) Tu-95MS BEAR-H6/16 bombers with 6/16 AS-15 KENT ALCMs

You can go to nti.org for much more exact numbers- but they are in line with mine. Over 3,000 for the ICBM force, 1,000-2,000 for the SLBM force depending on how many MIRVs they've got, and 626 for the bomber force (as of 2001- nti.org)

Lack of a deterrent indeed

I get my information from Stuart Slade directly. I'll take his word over most any web site.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-10-11 04:43am

And what crack is he smoking?

I guess I'm terribly wrong, all those delivery systems I just listed don't exist, and Russia only has 200 nukes based on bombers. And the signing of the SORT agreement to limit Russia and the US to about 2,000 warheads was silly anyway- Russia only has 200 after all; it's too bad the US Administration didn't have Stuart Slade to tell them what's what

Check ANY source. NTI.org is quite thorough and every single piece of data is fully referenced- and taken from extremely reputable sources. Please offer a more convincing argument to back up such a ridiculously extreme claim that just a name drop of a defense analyst.

Jeez Russia has been putting 10 new Topol-M ICBMs on the line every year since 1998; and has consistently conduccted numerous test-firings of every delivery system in the inventory since the fall of the USSR.(a catalog of which you can also find at nti.org).

Akm72 · Post by **Akm72** » 2002-10-11 08:31am

Vympel, the delivery systems on your list are most likly correct, but it ignores the fact that the Russians were unable to maintain their strategic forces throughout the '90s. The result it that a lot of those warheads would simply go 'Bang', rather than 'BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM' if used. Stuart Slade is an expert on this stuff, and even if his 200 warheads estimate is not 100% accurate, it is probably closer to the truth than a list of all the Russian delivery systems.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-10-11 12:50pm

The warheads aren't the major weakness in the chain. The delivery systems are. An ICBM is an incredibly expensive, complex piece of equipment, not to mention an SLBM. Not to mention that a warhead (which Russia has plenty of) is useless without the means to deliver it.

Wouldn't the non-existence of the Russian nuclear deterrent be common knowledge? It would be obvious on the more common defense channels not to mention mainstream Western and Russian media, (say, Jane's) and it would make talk of START III and the recently signed SORT totally foolish.

Heck if NINETY PERCENT of all the delivery systems I just listed are totally defective (which is refuted by the continuous tests of all delivery systems ever since the fall of the USSR) he's still underestimated the number of warheads that could be delivered by several hundred.

It's a ridiculous claim. It requires every ICBM and SSBN to be USELESS (even the BRAND NEW Topol-Ms), and it requires every bomber to be capable of carrying significantly less than what it can actually carry: 18 Tu-160 Blackjacks equals 216 AS-15 KENT ALCMs alone. 68 BEAR-H bombers with 6 each (even though some still carry 16- some have actually been downgraded for treaty compliance) each equals 408 AS-15 KENTs.

I'd like to see how insane a US Prez would be to attack Russia; as IF they'd be willing to trade a single major US city (as opposed to several hundred) to protect against the evils of communism. They didn't do it for 50 years, remember? A declaration of war by Ukraine is just far-fetched- in - there's quite a large Russian minority which gets treated badly- not the best idea to incite civil unrest. Central Asian republics? A joke- they're entirely dependent on Russia as it is for their economy and energy needs. The most powerful- Kazakhstan, has portions of its military (air force) controlled by Russia. And what "half-dozen" areas in the Russian Federation are ready to break away?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-10-12 02:08am

Sea Skimmer wrote: I get my information from Stuart Slade directly. I'll take his word over most any web site.

Can you give me a link or repost what he said to you? I think you're
talking out of yer ass...

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2002-10-12 03:08pm

200 all on bombers? Bullshit. They got SSBNs and ICBMs

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2002-10-12 06:26pm

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:Especially in New York City. It would be 9-11 thousands of times over.

They probably have a couple of dozen warheads targeted at NYC alone.

KG