Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Yeah, it's a great idea to rest on your haunches while an ambitious country ruled by vicious fascists bootstraps its military as fast as it can. Why, look how well that worked for Britain and France as Germany got themselves ready to go!It will be decades before China even remotely becomes a threat to the US.
Unlike Germany, China is NOT harboring significant desires to expand its territory, except maybe in certain parts of Siberia that were conquered by Tsarist Russia, and even then, the Russians fear illegal immigrants seeking work more than the (very unlikely) possibility of a Chinese soldier running amok with a rifle.Tanasinn wrote:Yeah, it's a great idea to rest on your haunches while an ambitious country ruled by vicious fascists bootstraps its military as fast as it can. Why, look how well that worked for Britain and France as Germany got themselves ready to go!It will be decades before China even remotely becomes a threat to the US.
There's a lot they seem to retain from the Cold War era.Mange wrote: That is nothing but outright paranoia which the Russians yet have to recover from the Cold War era.
Yeah, because there are no legal, moral, or practical distinctions between attacking Iraq and Russia.Tanasinn wrote:
Our unprovoked attack on Iraq, maybe?
Whilst I agree that China is a danger, it's not because of the reason you are positing. With the way China is using up resources it's not going to reach superpower status before it has to wage a war. I say has to because China will have to wage a war for resources just to survive. LinkTanasinn wrote:Yeah, it's a great idea to rest on your haunches while an ambitious country ruled by vicious fascists bootstraps its military as fast as it can. Why, look how well that worked for Britain and France as Germany got themselves ready to go!It will be decades before China even remotely becomes a threat to the US.
The only place to go for China, is north, which I really highly doubt especially if they don't want to get nuked into oblivion, which leaves the Spratlys which is a tricky proposition.General Schatten wrote: Whilst I agree that China is a danger, it's not because of the reason you are positing. With the way China is using up resources it's not going to reach superpower status before it has to wage a war. I say has to because China will have to wage a war for resources just to survive. Link
When you've just seen a big country fucking sit on a little country that (despite being run by a bunch of assholes) hadn't really done anything lately - despite protest of allies and neutral parties - then you're a little justified in worring when said big country starts talking about missile defense systems and giving you dirty looks over your earlier opinions.Lonestar wrote:Yeah, because there are no legal, moral, or practical distinctions between attacking Iraq and Russia.Tanasinn wrote:
Our unprovoked attack on Iraq, maybe?
Nope! None at All!
With Russia such a big country, combined with low observability, it will be hard to track every damn thing.Adrian Laguna wrote:They are not magical invisible bombers. Furthermore stealth bombers can be seen on radar, they're just hard to see. They actively avoid radar sites for that reason.phongn wrote:It's not like low-observable aircraft are immune from interception.Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:And stealth bombers?
It's always nice to hear about us in third person, but did it ever cross you that we might retain some Cold War things for good reasons, no?Kanastrous wrote:There's a lot they seem to retain from the Cold War era.
Like, the military? In a decade or two, that may change. The Russians are looking towards the future. Sure it's not likely that the US will attack Russia, but they can't take the chance can they?That is nothing but outright paranoia which the Russians yet have to recover from the Cold War era. What rationale does the Russians have to fear a first strike from the United States?
You missed a big domestic program, hose the Aster 30 missile has a limited ABM capability when used with the SAMP-T land based system, and a block 2 missile with vastly improved anti missile capability for ships and shore batteries is in the works. This weapon seems to have replaced talk of an Aster 45 ABM missile.MKSheppard wrote:Anyway, this is all just Russian bitching over the fact that life has changed and them demanding that the Europeans continue to have a suicide pact to appease Russian sensibilities.
Europe is building up quite a lot of ABM programs:
No, it's exactly that. Warheads or bombers will be used to destroy the first defensive echelon mechanisms, which lie in those countries, and only then target America. Those countries are massively fucked....so that it's no longer "Hahah, america is invincible, while europe gets pasted".
Bullshit - it was placed only around Moscow, that's by definition limited, and in accordance with the relevant treaty.MKSheppard wrote:
Bullshit. It is in no way limited in any form.
You're asserting that because old Soviet missiles are larger, they're just as capable as the GBI and in a position to defend all of Russia? That's ludicrous.The GALOSH (ABM-1) was 19.8m long, and 2.97m in diameter and weighed 32,700 kg.
Their latest, the GORGON (ABM-4) is 19.8m long, 2.57m in diameter, and weighs 33,000 kg.
In comparison, the Boeing GBI, which can cover virtually all of CONUS from ICBM attack, is 16.8m long, and 1.27m in diameter, and weighs a mere 12,700 kg.
You're telling me that the Commies, despite having a significantly heavier and bigger missisle in all parameters, can only defend a mere 300~ mile radius around Moscow with it, while the Americans with a much smaller missile can defend all of CONUS?
This does not compute.
Sary-Shagan also has a SAM test range. I can't believe you're conferring S-200 with a credible ABM capability because of where they test-fired the thing. It was a strategic air defence system rendered quite obsolete by the advent of ALCMs (hence replacement by the S-300, which has no ABM capability to speak of save at the purely short-range level)Really?
1.) The SA-5 was tested and developed at the Soviet's officially declared ABM range - Sary-Shagan.
Which proves what?2.) MRBMs and IRBMs were fired in trajectories closely approximating that of early SLBMs at Sary-Shagan during that time period.
You're probably right regarding the US government's decision to deploy ABM systems in Eastern Europe, but I get the feeling that if the Russian defense budget could accomodate the construction of naval, air, and space-based ABM systems, the Russian government would certainly deploy these systems.Stas Bush wrote:Shep, stop your wah-wah. At least we didn't have NAVAL, SPACE and "on your border in an unfriendly state" elements of ABM combined. Oh, and AIR too.
Well, why didn't the USSR break the treaty? It had the ability to create space-based elements of ABM and quite readily pondered such projects. It could also put ABM elements on Cuba, such as an EW radar and a small interceptor fleet. Why didn't it do so?I get the feeling that if the Russian defense budget could accomodate the construction of naval, air, and space-based ABM systems, the Russian government would certainly deploy these systems.
Yes, because people didn't invade Russia so many times in history, and the US in particular didn't once upon a time plan to nuke the hell out of it once upon a time, and didn't massively overspend on nuclear offensive forces when Russia barely tested it's own nuclear device and had virtually zero means of delivery! That's right boys, nothing like that happened. It was all stupid, paranoic Russians!B5B7 wrote:Russian paranoia is historical, not just from Cold War.
NOW.B5B7 wrote:US nuke spam attack on Russia - no economic/political justification for this.
Purest bullshit. America has the largest Navy in the world and conducts offensive operations far beyond it's own borders. You can't spout a Navy like that and claim it's "purely defensive".B5B7 wrote:Its conventional military forces are mainly defensive, it is economically draining for them in offensive ops.
Yes, won't. The technological gap isn't closed as easily as you think, moron. Especially in military matters, where you can't just import shit and say "OOOH, now I have those nifty technologies! Nevermind my country is a shithole which can't make such technolologies at all!" - that shit just doesn't fly in the military, and a 30 to 500 billion gap in funding obviously creates disparity in military capabilities. Sorry, your objection is moronic.B5B7 wrote:So over next 2 decades US will become more technologically advanced. And the rest of the world won't?!
Pretty sure he's talking about Russia, since indeed, Russia's Navy was purpose designed by the Soviets to make a USN attack and victory a phyrric one.Stas Bush wrote:Purest bullshit. America has the largest Navy in the world and conducts offensive operations far beyond it's own borders. You can't spout a Navy like that and claim it's "purely defensive".B5B7 wrote:Its conventional military forces are mainly defensive, it is economically draining for them in offensive ops.
Hey asshole, did you even read your own post?Tanasinn wrote: When you've just seen a big country fucking sit on a little country that (despite being run by a bunch of assholes) hadn't really done anything lately - despite protest of allies and neutral parties - then you're a little justified in worring when said big country starts talking about missile defense systems and giving you dirty looks over your earlier opinions.
I'm not going to claim it isn't paranoia to think a U.S. attack on Russia as a possibility (it is), but you'd be a terrible statesman if you just put on a shit-eating grin and hoped for the best. The "just in case" attitude towards ABm defense works both ways.
What you're trying to do is justify a fear that the United States is going to...launch a full scale, un-provoked, attack with nuclear missiles against a country that can remove more than a few American cities in the exchange(and that's assuming that the ABM system works at near 100% effective rate). Can you tell me where in the History of the United States we have ever started a war with a major power through use of a first strike intended to level the country(and the country has the ability to whale the shit out of us in return)?When you've just seen a big country fucking sit on a little country
