World War III is near, long speech by Chinese Defense minister

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Well, scuds ain't ICBMs, but what do I know?

Well patriot missiles are not the missile defense shield.

 

[knicksin2010]

Are you fvcking kidding me? The only country that would reek havoc on us in conventional warfare would be GB and even that country would have a very hard time because we would obtain air superiority very quickly. Then its only a matter of time before victory is obtained. Now on a land basis the strongest country is china but we wouldnt be stupid to put troops on the ground till we bomb the smitherines out of them(not necassarily with nukes). We do have MOAB's too.

So to answer your question nukes dont even have to be in the picture. We would still decimate any country that feels they need a spanking. And loses would be minimal.

On paper that is this case, but there's a human side in management, and we've been mismanaging a lot lately.Too many cronies in high levels, and too much disconnect from reality.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Russia too. As a war science student, you should know that they have second strike capability with their nukes.

They have a second strike capability in that they can launch several at the same time from different places. Well so can we. And we can laucnh from undetectable aircraft behind enemy lines. We would be able to eliminate the second strike before it happened. It is much easier to get away with one major strike then many major strikes. To coordinate and operate a large scale strike like that will end up leaking out and our intelligence agencies will find out. However, they would be able possibly to get away with one attack.


Also, I used to be an intern for SPAWAR and one of the departments were working on bringing back the Pebbles program which is a program that uses satellites to monitor the skies and when it sees an ICBM it shoots a projectile at the nuke to aleviate it. Its actually the best program that has actually been tested and proven serveral times but our good friend Clinton did away with the program. There are also several other major missle defense programs on the table its rediculous.

 

[Kelzie]

They have a second strike capability in that they can launch several at the same time from different places. Well so can we. And we can laucnh from undetectable aircraft behind enemy lines. We would be able to eliminate the second strike before it happened. It is much easier to get away with one major strike then many major strikes. To coordinate and operate a large scale strike like that will end up leaking out and our intelligence agencies will find out. However, they would be able possibly to get away with one attack.


Also, I used to be an intern for SPAWAR and one of the departments were working on bringing back the Pebbles program which is a program that uses satellites to monitor the skies and when it sees an ICBM it shoots a projectile at the nuke to aleviate it. Its actually the best program that has actually been tested and proven serveral times but our good friend Clinton did away with the program. There are also several other major missle defense programs on the table its rediculous.

That's not second strike capability. You sure you're a war science student?

 

[SKILMATIC]

On paper that is this case, but there's a human side in management, and we've been mismanaging a lot lately.Too many cronies in high levels, and too much disconnect from reality.

Well thats true to a point. Mismanagement comes from the beaurocrats not the soldiers. Our soldiers are the most fierce and most effective on this planet. If gov stays out of the militaries way it can be done quite easily. However, politics plays a part. However, in this last war we have been there for almost 3 yrs now with just over 2000 casualites. And in the initial invasion we only lost something like 7. Its much better compared to the 8000men we lost on the beach of Omaha in just an hour.

Plus on paper they incorporate mistakes; thats why they also incorporate plan B's and plan C's. :lol:

 

[SKILMATIC]

That's not second strike capability. You sure you're a war science student?

Yes a second strike is by definition the ability to survive a first strike with sufficient resources to deliver an effective counterblow. Which like I said before means if they were to get attacked initially by us from a nuclear attack they could throw at us a good counter measure which is not the case anymore. This was only the case in the Cold war.

As I said before if we would throw an initial attack it would be so insurmountable they would be so overwhelmed with defending themselves they wouldnt have any time to think of a countermeasure. This is what we like to call in obvious terms as overwhelming your opponent. Basically that is when you attack you attack with everything you got. This way they are insurmountably overwhelmed they cant decisivley deliver a countermeasure. This is what hitler did in his blitzkrieg tactics, this is what we did in Iraq. We didnt just attack on the ground or sea but from all venues and aspects. We attacked from east, west, (we tried north but Turkey was giving us problems), south , sea, land, air, and under the sea. If we do this to Russia on a much larger scale of course the same outcome would ocurr.

 

[Kelzie]

Yes a second strike is by definition the ability to survive a first strike with sufficient resources to deliver an effective counterblow. Which like I said before means if they were to get attacked initially by us from a nuclear attack they could throw at us a good counter measure which is not the case anymore. This was only the case in the Cold war.

As I said before if we would throw an initial attack it would be so insurmountable they would be so overwhelmed with defending themselves they wouldnt have any time to think of a countermeasure. This is what we like to call in obvious terms as overwhelming your opponent. Basically that is when you attack you attack with everything you got. This way they are insurmountably overwhelmed they cant decisivley deliver a countermeasure. This is what hitler did in his blitzkrieg tactics, this is what we did in Iraq. We didnt just attack on the ground or sea but from all venues and aspects. We attacked from east, west, (we tried north but Turkey was giving us problems), south , sea, land, air, and under the sea. If we do this to Russia on a much larger scale of course the same outcome would ocurr.

They still have second strike capability. You think they'd disarm so many missiles that they'd lose that? No way.

 

[SKILMATIC]

They still have second strike capability. You think they'd disarm so many missiles that they'd lose that? No way.

No I never said disarm. Please read my post adequately my love. I said that if we did throw a first strike that it would be so large and so overwhelming they wouldnt be able to countermeasure becasue their countermeasures would be severed. Also because they woudl have so many problems after the first strike they wouldnt attain the ability to counter. Plus we would be omnipresent there that if a mouse moved we would know about it. :2wave:

 

[Kelzie]

No I never said disarm. Please read my post adequately my love. I said that if we did throw a first strike that it would be so large and so overwhelming they wouldnt be able to countermeasure becasue their countermeasures would be severed. Also because they woudl have so many problems after the first strike they wouldnt attain the ability to counter. Plus we would be omnipresent there that if a mouse moved we would know about it. :2wave:

Well than that's not second stike capability now is it? And the fact remains that they have it. So obviously if we hit first, they'd have sufficient nukes left to wipe out most of our cities. Hence the name: second strike capability.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Well than that's not second stike capability now is it? And the fact remains that they have it. So obviously if we hit first, they'd have sufficient nukes left to wipe out most of our cities. Hence the name: second strike capability.

Thats why I said they dont attain it. Yes they have nukes but if they dont have the capacity to launch and logistically carry out the attack its not second strike. They maybe capable too deliver a second strike but they wouldnt be capable of it. Thats what I am trying to tell you. You could have all the nukes in the world but if you couldnt adequately deliver them and decisively deliver an attack then they are rendered useless. That would mean you dont attain the ability to deliver a second strike. You may have the capability to do so, but you wouldnt be capable of it after suffering an attack from us.

 

[Kelzie]

Thats why I said they dont attain it. Yes they have nukes but if they dont have the capacity to launch and logistically carry out the attack its not second strike. They maybe capable too deliver a second strike but they wouldnt be capable of it. Thats what I am trying to tell you. You could have all the nukes in the world but if you couldnt adequately deliver them and decisively deliver an attack then they are rendered useless. That would mean you dont attain the ability to deliver a second strike. You may have the capability to do so, but you wouldnt be capable of it after suffering an attack from us.

But that is NOT the definition of second strike capability. It is, verbatim from my textbook, "the capacity to absorb an enemy attack and still have enough weapons remaining to retaliate and inflict unacceptable damage on the opponent"

Now we go to the handy-dandy chart on the next page (current as of 2004):

The US has 5,886 nuclear warheads with 115 bombers, 529 ICBMs and 360 SLBMs

Russia has 4,422 nuclear warheads with 78 bombers, 613 ICBMs and 232 SLBMs

I'm going to assume a couple things. One, that you don't need me to explain what the various delivery vehicles are. And two that you don't want me to list how many warheads they have adapted to each vehicle. I will if you want, but I don't see how it's relevant.

Now, I would assume, you being a war science student and all, that you can see from this that even if we wiped out 4/5 of their strategic nuclear force on our first attack (which is extremely optimistic), that would still leave them with 185 delivery vehicles and 885 nuclear warheads. Now does that seem like acceptable damage to you?


Oh, by the way, they pulled the data from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

 

[SKILMATIC]

But that is NOT the definition of second strike capability. It is, verbatim from my textbook, "the capacity to absorb an enemy attack and still have enough weapons remaining to retaliate and inflict unacceptable damage on the opponent"

Now we go to the handy-dandy chart on the next page (current as of 2004):

The US has 5,886 nuclear warheads with 115 bombers, 529 ICBMs and 360 SLBMs

Russia has 4,422 nuclear warheads with 78 bombers, 613 ICBMs and 232 SLBMs

I'm going to assume a couple things. One, that you don't need me to explain what the various delivery vehicles are. And two that you don't want me to list how many warheads they have adapted to each vehicle. I will if you want, but I don't see how it's relevant.

Now, I would assume, you being a war science student and all, that you can see from this that even if we wiped out 4/5 of their strategic nuclear force on our first attack (which is extremely optimistic), that would still leave them with 185 delivery vehicles and 885 nuclear warheads. Now does that seem like acceptable damage to you?

Well your text book BASICALLY STATED THE SAME DEFINITION I DID JUST IN DIFFERENT WORDS. And again I never said that my eplanation of what would happen is the definition of a second strike capability. I really dont know what you are talking about? I know what second strike is and the ability to carry out one would entail.

Let me break it down for you the amount of nukes we have and the projected amount in 2012. Also your current numbers arent correct as we havent yet retired that many nukes yet. So your textbook is wrong. I will show you the amount we have in Europe and how many we have on mainland and how many is projected to retire.


U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe
Location Warheads
Kleine Brogel Airbase, Belgium 20
Buchel Airbase, Germany 20
Ramstein Airbase, Germany 130
Aviano Airbase, Italy 50
Ghedi Airbase, Italy 40
Volkel Airbase, Netherlands 20
Incirlik Airbase, Turkey 90
RAF Lakenheath, Britain 110

Total 480

Warheads likely slated for retirement or disassembly
Warhead type Number

W62 (MM III ICBM) 730
W78 (MM III ICBM) 425
W76 (Trident I SLBM) 1,350
W80-1 (ACM/ALCM) 1,000
W84 (GLCM) 380
B61-3 200
B61-4 210
B61-10 30

Total ~4,325
ACM: advanced cruise missile; ALCM: air-launched cruise missile; GLCM: ground-launched cruise missile; ICBM: intercontinental ballistic missile; MM: Minuteman; SLBM: submarine-launched ballistic missile; SLCM: submarine-launched cruise missile.

Projected nuclear stockpile, 2012
Warhead type Number

W78 (MM III ICBM) 400
W87 (MM III ICBM) 545
W76 (Trident I/II SLBM) 1,840
W88 (Trident II SLBM) 400
B61-3 200
B61-4 200
B61-7 430
B61-10 180
B61-11 35
B83-0/-1 625
W80-1 (ACM/ALCM) 825
W80-0 (SLCM) 265

Total ~5,945
ACM: advanced cruise missile; ALCM: air-launched cruise missile; GLCM: ground-launched cruise missile; ICBM: intercontinental ballistic missile; MM: Minuteman; SLBM: submarine-launched ballistic missile; SLCM: submarine-launched cruise missile.



As you can see we currently have as of today 5945+4325(because we havent yet retired them yet). This will be a gradually occurring process. Now after the retirement of the nukes then your books amount will be almost correct.

Now heres for the Russian forces. (Note: your history book is correct inregards to the Russian nukes)
Type Name Launchers Year deployed Warheads x yield (kiloton) Total warheads

ICBMs
SS-18 Satan 120 1979 10 x 550/750 1,200
SS-19 Stiletto 130 1980 6 x 550/750 780
SS-24 M1 Scalpel 15 1987 10 x 550 150
SS-25 Sickle 312 1985 1 x 550 312
SS-27 n.a. 36 1997 1 x 550 36
Total 613 2,478

SLBMs
SS-N-18 M1 Stingray 96 1978 3 x 200 (MIRV) 288
SS-N-20 Sturgeon 40 1983 10 x 100 (MIRV) 400
SS-N-23 Skiff 96 1986 4 x 100 (MIRV) 384
Total 232 1,072

Bomber/weapons
Tu-95 MS6 Bear H6 32 1984 6 AS-15A ALCMs 192
Tu-95 MS16 Bear H16 32 1984 16 AS-15A ALCMs 512
Tu-160 Blackjack 14 1987 12 AS-15B ALCMs 168
Total 78 872

Grand total 923 ~4,422
ALCM--air-launched cruise missile; AS--air-to-surface missile; ICBM--intercontinental ballistic missile, range greater than 5,500 kilometers;

MIRV--multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles; SLBM--submarine-launched ballistic missile; SRAM--short-range attack missile.

There you go. Any questions?

 

[Kelzie]

Well your text book BASICALLY STATED THE SAME DEFINITION I DID JUST IN DIFFERENT WORDS. And again I never said that my eplanation of what would happen is the definition of a second strike capability. I really dont know what you are talking about? I know what second strike is and the ability to carry out one would entail.

Let me break it down for you the amount of nukes we have and the projected amount in 2012. Also your current numbers arent correct as we havent yet retired that many nukes yet. So your textbook is wrong. I will show you the amount we have in Europe and how many we have on mainland and how many is projected to retire.


U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe
Location Warheads
Kleine Brogel Airbase, Belgium 20
Buchel Airbase, Germany 20
Ramstein Airbase, Germany 130
Aviano Airbase, Italy 50
Ghedi Airbase, Italy 40
Volkel Airbase, Netherlands 20
Incirlik Airbase, Turkey 90
RAF Lakenheath, Britain 110

Total 480

Warheads likely slated for retirement or disassembly
Warhead type Number

W62 (MM III ICBM) 730
W78 (MM III ICBM) 425
W76 (Trident I SLBM) 1,350
W80-1 (ACM/ALCM) 1,000
W84 (GLCM) 380
B61-3 200
B61-4 210
B61-10 30

Total ~4,325
ACM: advanced cruise missile; ALCM: air-launched cruise missile; GLCM: ground-launched cruise missile; ICBM: intercontinental ballistic missile; MM: Minuteman; SLBM: submarine-launched ballistic missile; SLCM: submarine-launched cruise missile.

Projected nuclear stockpile, 2012
Warhead type Number

W78 (MM III ICBM) 400
W87 (MM III ICBM) 545
W76 (Trident I/II SLBM) 1,840
W88 (Trident II SLBM) 400
B61-3 200
B61-4 200
B61-7 430
B61-10 180
B61-11 35
B83-0/-1 625
W80-1 (ACM/ALCM) 825
W80-0 (SLCM) 265

Total ~5,945
ACM: advanced cruise missile; ALCM: air-launched cruise missile; GLCM: ground-launched cruise missile; ICBM: intercontinental ballistic missile; MM: Minuteman; SLBM: submarine-launched ballistic missile; SLCM: submarine-launched cruise missile.



As you can see we currently have as of today 5945+4325(because we havent yet retired them yet). This will be a gradually occurring process. Now after the retirement of the nukes then your books amount will be almost correct.

Now heres for the Russian forces. (Note: your history book is correct inregards to the Russian nukes)
Type Name Launchers Year deployed Warheads x yield (kiloton) Total warheads

ICBMs
SS-18 Satan 120 1979 10 x 550/750 1,200
SS-19 Stiletto 130 1980 6 x 550/750 780
SS-24 M1 Scalpel 15 1987 10 x 550 150
SS-25 Sickle 312 1985 1 x 550 312
SS-27 n.a. 36 1997 1 x 550 36
Total 613 2,478

SLBMs
SS-N-18 M1 Stingray 96 1978 3 x 200 (MIRV) 288
SS-N-20 Sturgeon 40 1983 10 x 100 (MIRV) 400
SS-N-23 Skiff 96 1986 4 x 100 (MIRV) 384
Total 232 1,072

Bomber/weapons
Tu-95 MS6 Bear H6 32 1984 6 AS-15A ALCMs 192
Tu-95 MS16 Bear H16 32 1984 16 AS-15A ALCMs 512
Tu-160 Blackjack 14 1987 12 AS-15B ALCMs 168
Total 78 872

Grand total 923 ~4,422
ALCM--air-launched cruise missile; AS--air-to-surface missile; ICBM--intercontinental ballistic missile, range greater than 5,500 kilometers;

MIRV--multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles; SLBM--submarine-launched ballistic missile; SRAM--short-range attack missile.

There you go. Any questions?

My text book said it's current and that further cuts are likely. Don't know what to tell you. I doubt it's wrong for one and not the other.

Regardless, the Russian arsenal is what's important and you've already said that's correct. The fact remains that even if we could wipe out 4/5 of their strategic nuclear force (which you know is unlikely, they have the same defenses that we do, ie. subs permantly on the go, bombers alert and ready to fly any second, etc), their remaining nukes WOULD cause unacceptable damage to the US. Do you or do you not agree?

 

[Kelzie]

Don't worry, DON'T WORRY! :lol:

I found where the discrepency lies. Evidently, the US has 780 non-strategic warheads and 5,000 responsive reserve force warheads which have their tritium removed. Those numbers should match up better. Although I would like to add that in any discussion of first and second response capability, the missiles that are not available for immediate deployment should not be considered.

 

[SKILMATIC]

I'm going to assume a couple things. One, that you don't need me to explain what the various delivery vehicles are. And two that you don't want me to list how many warheads they have adapted to each vehicle. I will if you want, but I don't see how it's relevant.

Your right you dont need to casue I am well aware of it thats why I know what the utcome would be if we did get into a war with russia. Why do you think Russia nor China decided to wage war aginst the country they hate? Yes economical reprocussions but they could ealleviate that through their socialist ways. :lol:

Now, I would assume, you being a war science student and all, that you can see from this that even if we wiped out 4/5 of their strategic nuclear force on our first attack (which is extremely optimistic), that would still leave them with 185 delivery vehicles and 885 nuclear warheads. Now does that seem like acceptable damage to you?

I know every war is different. However, we thought before the Iraqi war started that we would lose literally tens of thousands becasue of mass insurgencies but its obvious thats not the case. In the beginning of the Iraqi war befreo we even set foot into it we literally took out 100% of military installations, 100% utilities, and all infrastructure that would help their military. Now in a war with Russia we know where their nukes are and where they would strike and from where they would strike. We know what it takes to logistically move the nukes and we know where they will take them. We also know that their logistics resources are hindered very much in the winter. We also know that the vehicles they use are ill maintained. Their aricraft are good but they do not have the latest of technology when it comes to computer and targeting systems. I know becasue we worked on a MiG21. It couldnt perform a -4 g dive which in most US jet fighters can perform that maneuver. However, when it tries to do this it would go to fail safe then would seize then stall. Now we have incorporated the MiG 21 to do that maneuver becasue the MiG 21's computer system didnt allow the plane to carry out such a maneuver. Now we made it to where it can. Also the MiG line of aircraft has what we(the US) call primitive dog fighting computer systems. We on the other hand have the most advanced by far.

Did you know the B1 bomber(physically) cant fly? It is the most unstable aircraft that we use. However, it is stable with the use of computers. Yes, the plane flies with the use of computers.

Now this info has every bit to do with a war with russia. It is in these minor details that you can see where Russia and how Russia lacks the ability to hold a war with the US. And I havent even gone into detail either. I just brushed the tip. You see its not how many nukes you have its what you have to allow the nuke to do its job. A country could have 1million nukes and be the most powerless country in the world if it has no way of getting those nukes to their final destination. However, a country that has one nuke that can undoubtedly attain a direct hit wherever it wanted too would be the most powerful country in the world. And we are the only ones that can claim that.

 

[SKILMATIC]

My text book said it's current and that further cuts are likely. Don't know what to tell you. I doubt it's wrong for one and not the other.

Regardless, the Russian arsenal is what's important and you've already said that's correct. The fact remains that even if we could wipe out 4/5 of their strategic nuclear force (which you know is unlikely, they have the same defenses that we do, ie. subs permantly on the go, bombers alert and ready to fly any second, etc), their remaining nukes WOULD cause unacceptable damage to the US. Do you or do you not agree?

Again you are missing the point here my love. Its not what you have. Its how you can get it to its final destination. If we only wiped out 4/5 in the intitial attack. Which would leave the amount you showed in the recent post left. I cant begin to tell you how much the Russian gov would lack to carrry out a second strike even with its left over forces. They will lack one thing to do it and this one thing will create a snowball effect. It is their ability to coordinate the second strike. They will be in utter chaos. It is becasue of the damage we would reek on the Russians is what will severely sever any intent to counter. Yes they may have the resources to do so but the ability will not be there. Not to mention we would be all over their skies as we would have air superiority and sea superiority. We would also destroy their northern fleet which is their largest sub and ship division which is their first strike force(THEY WOULD NEED THAT FOR A SECOND STRIKE IF ITS THEIR FIRST STRIKE FORCE). If they were to launch a second strike from their ground we woudl destroy it by air. If they tried to launch by sub we would destroy it by air or sea with our navy. So again the second strike wouldnt occur.

 

[Kelzie]

Your right you dont need to casue I am well aware of it thats why I know what the utcome would be if we did get into a war with russia. Why do you think Russia nor China decided to wage war aginst the country they hate? Yes economical reprocussions but they could ealleviate that through their socialist ways. :lol:



I know every war is different. However, we thought before the Iraqi war started that we would lose literally tens of thousands becasue of mass insurgencies but its obvious thats not the case. In the beginning of the Iraqi war befreo we even set foot into it we literally took out 100% of military installations, 100% utilities, and all infrastructure that would help their military. Now in a war with Russia we know where their nukes are and where they would strike and from where they would strike. We know what it takes to logistically move the nukes and we know where they will take them. We also know that their logistics resources are hindered very much in the winter. We also know that the vehicles they use are ill maintained. Their aricraft are good but they do not have the latest of technology when it comes to computer and targeting systems. I know becasue we worked on a MiG21. It couldnt perform a -4 g dive which in most US jet fighters can perform that maneuver. However, when it tries to do this it would go to fail safe then would seize then stall. Now we have incorporated the MiG 21 to do that maneuver becasue the MiG 21's computer system didnt allow the plane to carry out such a maneuver. Now we made it to where it can. Also the MiG line of aircraft has what we(the US) call primitive dog fighting computer systems. We on the other hand have the most advanced by far.

Did you know the B1 bomber(physically) cant fly? It is the most unstable aircraft that we use. However, it is stable with the use of computers. Yes, the plane flies with the use of computers.

Now this info has every bit to do with a war with russia. It is in these minor details that you can see where Russia and how Russia lacks the ability to hold a war with the US. And I havent even gone into detail either. I just brushed the tip. You see its not how many nukes you have its what you have to allow the nuke to do its job. A country could have 1million nukes and be the most powerless country in the world if it has no way of getting those nukes to their final destination. However, a country that has one nuke that can undoubtedly attain a direct hit wherever it wanted too would be the most powerful country in the world. And we are the only ones that can claim that.

I have never heard 10,000 dead from Iraq. I did hear a lot of "it'll be a cakewalk"

And I already posted the numbers from their delivery vehicles. They are very comparable to our, excpet they do have more ICBMs.


And you need to get off your patriotic kick military boy. I would never dream of saying that they have even an equal military capability. They have a close enough strategic nuclear force though, that we would be seriously risking MAD if we ever attacked them first. Can you at least agree to that?

 

[Kelzie]

Again you are missing the point here my love. Its not what you have. Its how you can get it to its final destination. If we only wiped out 4/5 in the intitial attack. Which would leave the amount you showed in the recent post left. I cant begin to tell you how much the Russian gov would lack to carrry out a second strike even with its left over forces. They will lack one thing to do it and this one thing will create a snowball effect. It is their ability to coordinate the second strike. They will be in utter chaos. It is becasue of the damage we would reek on the Russians is what will severely sever any intent to counter. Yes they may have the resources to do so but the ability will not be there. Not to mention we would be all over their skies as we would have air superiority and sea superiority. We would also destroy their northern fleet which is their largest sub and ship division which is their first strike force(THEY WOULD NEED THAT FOR A SECOND STRIKE IF ITS THEIR FIRST STRIKE FORCE). If they were to launch a second strike from their ground we woudl destroy it by air. If they tried to launch by sub we would destroy it by air or sea with our navy. So again the second strike wouldnt occur.

Doubtful. A lot of their military operates like dominos. Once the mainland is hit, all operational vehicles are keyed to respond with an attack. A lot like ours, actually.

 

[SKILMATIC]

I have never heard 10,000 dead from Iraq. I did hear a lot of "it'll be a cakewalk"

And I already posted the numbers from their delivery vehicles. They are very comparable to our, excpet they do have more ICBMs.


And you need to get off your patriotic kick military boy. I would never dream of saying that they have even an equal military capability. They have a close enough strategic nuclear force though, that we would be seriously risking MAD if we ever attacked them first. Can you at least agree to that?

Well of course you are a civilian. These were the reports prior before we even got there. These estimations were given to the Pentagon and further investigated. They were expecting the use of bio and chemical weapons.

Their vehicles arent even compared to ours. Their weapons systems are different and even their own vehicles arent covered by anti aircraft weapons. The launch sites are also very ill maintained and are equipped with primitive weapon systems. Their systems are what we used almost 20 years ago. Now you can begin to understand they are inept. Also in winter their siberia launch sites would become in-operable due to the freezing temps. Their radars also sometimes seize and insodoing would cause a open door to thier northern fleet and thier northern borders and ports. They have so many loop holes its rediculous and they know it. I mean they couldnt even win a war with the Afghans for christ sakes. We beat them in less than a month. See the difference?

 

[Kelzie]

Well of course you are a civilian. These were the reports prior before we even got there. These estimations were given to the Pentagon and further investigated. They were expecting the use of bio and chemical weapons.

Their vehicles arent even compared to ours. Their weapons systems are different and even their own vehicles arent covered by anti aircraft weapons. The launch sites are also very ill maintained and are equipped with primitive weapon systems. Their systems are what we used almost 20 years ago. Now you can begin to understand they are inept. Also in winter their siberia launch sites would become in-operable due to the freezing temps. Their radars also sometimes seize and insodoing would cause a open door to thier northern fleet and thier northern borders and ports. They have so many loop holes its rediculous and they know it. I mean they couldnt even win a war with the Afghans for christ sakes. We beat them in less than a month. See the difference?

The loss in Afghan was in no way a result of their military capabilites. It had to do with the fact that there state was collapsing. Not applicable at all.

And you're not exactly MI bucko. Tell me how it is that you are prevy to secret estimations by the CIA and DoD?

 

[SKILMATIC]

And you need to get off your patriotic kick military boy. I would never dream of saying that they have even an equal military capability. They have a close enough strategic nuclear force though, that we would be seriously risking MAD if we ever attacked them first. Can you at least agree to that?

Nope, mutual assured destruction would never happen. Now I would agee to SAD. Now we might be hit once if the Russians decided to attack first but if we attacked first you can basically say bye bye to the Russians. I woud estimate liberaly that the most we would lose would be about 20000 US troops until surrendor occurs.

 

[SKILMATIC]

The loss in Afghan was in no way a result of their military capabilites. It had to do with the fact that there state was collapsing. Not applicable at all.

And you're not exactly MI bucko. Tell me how it is that you are prevy to secret estimations by the CIA and DoD?

And what do you think what would happen if their state was literally collapsing? There you go. Now you get the picture? So if there state collapsed without any nuclear action what do you think would happen with nuclear destruction? Not to mention the soviet gov is already unstable right now.

Well I may not be Tom Cruise but lets just say I had a good friend that was in the CIA. Also many of the board members of the Acadmey are DOD officials. And Gunny works for intelligence in the Pnentagon. My grandfather was also a pilot in the Air Force and retired as a colonel. He too knows alot about military intelligence and foreign policies. He stil to this day has many ties in the air force. One of his fellow B52 pilots became a Major General not to long ago. So I would say my info is pretty good.

 

[Kelzie]

Nope, mutual assured destruction would never happen. Now I would agee to SAD. Now we might be hit once if the Russians decided to attack first but if we attacked first you can basically say bye bye to the Russians. I woud estimate liberaly that the most we would lose would be about 20000 US troops until surrendor occurs.

I can assure you that Russia has a lot more info then you do about how far it can reduce it's missiles and still maintain second strike capability. And their technology is hardly as decrepid as you imply. They spend the second most in the world on their military, $10 billion more than the UK, which is the only country you mistakingly believe is capable of attacking us.

Not only are they capable, the US actually has some interest at keeping them second strike capable. Second strike capable countries are a lot less trigger happy, which I'm sure you know.

 

[Kelzie]

And what do you think what would happen if their state was literally collapsing? There you go. Now you get the picture? So if there state collapsed without any nuclear action what do you think would happen with nuclear destruction? Not to mention the soviet gov is already unstable right now.

Well I may not be Tom Cruise but lets just say I had a good friend that was in the CIA. Also many of the board members of the Acadmey are DOD officials. And Gunny works for intelligence in the Pnentagon. My grandfather was also a pilot in the Air Force and retired as a colonel. He too knows alot about military intelligence and foreign policies. He stil to this day has many ties in the air force. One of his fellow B52 pilots became a Major General not to long ago. So I would say my info is pretty good.

None of them would give you info they wouldn't tell the press. Because, obviously, you blab. So unless you can back it up with a press story, I don't buy it.

The USSR and Russia are very different countries. And Russia's doing fine. A lot better than France. :lol:

 

[SKILMATIC]

I can assure you that Russia has a lot more info then you do about how far it can reduce it's missiles and still maintain second strike capability. And their technology is hardly as decrepid as you imply. They spend the second most in the world on their military, $10 billion more than the UK, which is the only country you mistakingly believe is capable of attacking us.

Not only are they capable, the US actually has some interest at keeping them second strike capable. Second strike capable countries are a lot less trigger happy, which I'm sure you know.

I bet you they do know more than I becasue thats exactly why they dont strike. DUH!!! And yes their technology is highly inept compared to ours. You just dont know it neither have you worked with it. Again you must look at alot more than money into a military. GB is far more apt to decisively strike than Russia is. Key word decisively.

Now here is what Russia is planning on doing with their budget in 04-05. They are going to spend a whopping 412bilion rubles=approximately $14billion this year. That money is going to go to the following: four silo-based Topol-M ICBM complexes, 11 revamped Sukhoi Su-27SM fighters, 80 BTR-90 armored personnel carriers (APCs), two nuclear-powered submarines (an Mk 955 Borei-class submarine and one Mk 941 Dmitry Donskoi-class submarine), two Iskander shorter-range missile complexes, 91 {30 as in text- mistake} T-90 main battle tanks, as well as about 3,000 motor vehicles, throughout the entire 2005 period.

Actually the UK's military budget was $35billion in 2000 and rose to about 10% this year. So your wrong on that point. The last time Russia overspent GB was in '03 which they spend about $51billion

Also the US compared to all military budgets in 2006 is expected to spend around $441.6billion. Soagain like I said I am not worried one bit.

And China spent about $55billion in 2004.

And lastly, anyone can be trigger happy it all depends what kind of people they are.