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

[SKILMATIC]

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:

All this info can be traced through the net somehow. Besides none of this is top secret info. Its all out in the world wide press if you cared to read it.

 

[SKILMATIC]

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:

Do I seriously need to submit links for everything?

 

[Kelzie]

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.

Here's a link for the CRS Repport for the US Congress: http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32209.pdf

In 2004, Russia and China spent the same. The UK spent 37,000....3,000 below France...

Hun...have you studied the concept of first vs second strike capability?

And Russia would never strike the US for the same reason we would never strike them. MAD.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Here's a link for the CRS Repport for the US Congress: http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32209.pdf

In 2004, Russia and China spent the same. The UK spent 37,000....3,000 below France...

Hun...have you studied the concept of first vs second strike capability?

And Russia would never strike the US for the same reason we would never strike them. MAD.

First off, I think the UK spent a little more than 37000bucks or even pounds. Do you even know anything about war and military or do you just read your college history text? Please tell me something I dont know. Again even your own article says the UK spent approximately $40billion.

Again the observations between the differences of FSC and SFC in concordance to MAD constantly differ each year as military differs each year. Even morons know this. However, even a moron can tell you that someone will strike with a nuke sometime in the future. When? I have no idea.

Also have you studied the analyzation between a MOAB and sparklers? What differences do they possess and their likes? Also which one is better where and in what ranges?

 

[Kelzie]

First off, I think the UK spent a little more than 37000bucks or even pounds. Do you even know anything about war and military or do you just read your college history text? Please tell me something I dont know. Again even your own article says the UK spent approximately $40billion.

Again the observations between the differences of FSC and SFC in concordance to MAD constantly differ each year as military differs each year. Even morons know this. However, even a moron can tell you that someone will strike with a nuke sometime in the future. When? I have no idea.

Also have you studied the analyzation between a MOAB and sparklers? What differences do they possess and their likes? Also which one is better where and in what ranges?

It's in 100,000s. That way they don't fill up the page with a bunch of zeros.

What everyone? I don't think so. We have a fairly large zone of peace and it's spreading. I have hope for mankind, even if you don't. :mrgreen:

And I'm talking military theory here. Not weapon usage. Although, if you really want me to look it up, I will.

 

[SKILMATIC]

It's in 100,000s. That way they don't fill up the page with a bunch of zeros.

What everyone? I don't think so. We have a fairly large zone of peace and it's spreading. I have hope for mankind, even if you don't. :mrgreen:

And I'm talking military theory here. Not weapon usage. Although, if you really want me to look it up, I will.

No its in the millions which would be 1000000.

I dont have hope for mankind becasue its our nature. Also the second law of thermodynamics is not on your side but on mine. Are you really going to debate with me on a law?

Please look it up. I would like to see what you come up with. I like hearing different peoples anecdotes. And hey, you may learn a thing or too.

 

[Kelzie]

No its in the millions which would be 1000000.

I dont have hope for mankind becasue its our nature. Also the second law of thermodynamics is not on your side but on mine. Are you really going to debate with me on a law?

Please look it up. I would like to see what you come up with. I like hearing different peoples anecdotes. And hey, you may learn a thing or too.

What's with you and making me look stuff up today?

Dude, that has to do with freakin energy systems. I really hope you're not trying to apply something relatively simple like energy, to human beings, who have free will?

 

[SKILMATIC]

What's with you and making me look stuff up today?

Dude, that has to do with freakin energy systems. I really hope you're not trying to apply something relatively simple like energy, to human beings, who have free will?

BWAHAHAA. Stop using google my love. A MOAB(Massive Ordinance Air Blast) is a type of ordinance. A MOAB is a 21000pd bomb that is delivered usually by a C130(you do know what that is right?). Now that you know what it is maybe you can do a better search for me my love. Do I need to tell you what a sparkler is or can you use common sense to figure it out?

Let me know if you need help with either search if you cant find anything let me know and I can write you a report on what they are. Gee, maybe my sources are pretty good. O well everyone has their opinions. :lol:

 

[Kelzie]

BWAHAHAA. Stop using google my love. A MOAB(Massive Ordinance Air Blast) is a type of ordinance. A MOAB is a 21000pd bomb that is delivered usually by a C130(you do know what that is right?). Now that you know what it is maybe you can do a better search for me my love. Do I need to tell you what a sparkler is or can you use common sense to figure it out?

Let me know if you need help with either search if you cant find anything let me know and I can write you a report on what they are. Gee, maybe my sources are pretty good. O well everyone has their opinions. :lol:

What are you talking about crazy? You said the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[SKILMATIC]

What are you talking about crazy? You said the second law of thermodynamics.

I was just being sarcastic with you on that point but its still true. Anyways any luck on the search?

 

[Kelzie]

I was just being sarcastic with you on that point but its still true. Anyways any luck on the search?

I told you. Energy sytems. It's a theory in physics. Doesn't apply to the much more complicated world of human relations if that was where you were going.

 

[SKILMATIC]

What are you talking about crazy? You said the second law of thermodynamics.

Yes, but stop getting off tangeant here. You are very good at that. Please let me know what you find.

 

[SKILMATIC]

I told you. Energy sytems. It's a theory in physics. Doesn't apply to the much more complicated world of human relations if that was where you were going.

Again who cares thats not the discussion. I dont care to talk about that, however, I do care about the analyzation of the MOAB and the sparkler. Please get back on topic here.

 

[Kelzie]

Again who cares thats not the discussion. I dont care to talk about that, however, I do care about the analyzation of the MOAB and the sparkler. Please get back on topic here.

WTF? You brought it up. Not me.

Fine. Whatever, MOAB: aka Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb or familiarly Mother of all Bombs. Carries 18,000 pounds of tritonal explosives (which have an indefinite shelfl life), for a total weight of 21,500 pounds. It is 30 feet long with a diameter of 40.5 inches, which makes it the largest non-nuclear missile. It was developed to replace the Daisy Cutter which has 12,600 pounds of the less-powerful GSX explosives for a total weight of 15,000 pounds.

It was originally built to be used against large formations of troops and equipment or hardened above-ground bunkers. The target was later expanded to include deeply buried targets. Although the military admits it would most often be used for psychological warfare, but it was never used in Iraq.

The MOAB is deployed on a pallet from a C-130 aircraft. It initially has a parachute, but as it deploys, the Inertial Navigation System and Global Positioning System take over. It also has wings and grid fins for guidance.

That's enough. I really don't care all that much about military equipment. You can do sparklers yourself. What does this have to do with anything?

 

[SKILMATIC]

WTF? You brought it up. Not me.

Fine. Whatever, MOAB: aka Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb or familiarly Mother of all Bombs. Carries 18,000 pounds of tritonal explosives (which have an indefinite shelfl life), for a total weight of 21,500 pounds. It is 30 feet long with a diameter of 40.5 inches, which makes it the largest non-nuclear missile. It was developed to replace the Daisy Cutter which has 12,600 pounds of the less-powerful GSX explosives for a total weight of 15,000 pounds.

It was originally built to be used against large formations of troops and equipment or hardened above-ground bunkers. The target was later expanded to include deeply buried targets. Although the military admits it would most often be used for psychological warfare, but it was never used in Iraq.

The MOAB is deployed on a pallet from a C-130 aircraft. It initially has a parachute, but as it deploys, the Inertial Navigation System and Global Positioning System take over. It also has wings and grid fins for guidance.

That's enough. I really don't care all that much about military equipment. You can do sparklers yourself. What does this have to do with anything?

Well I already know what the MOAB is. I didnt want a book report I wanted an evaluation between the 2. I also already know what the sparkler is compared to the MOAB and how they differ.

 

[Kelzie]

Well I already know what the MOAB is. I didnt want a book report I wanted an evaluation between the 2. I also already know what the sparkler is compared to the MOAB and how they differ.

No. How's that for your evaluation? I'm not wasting even more of my time to find out about a weapon system that is in no way relevant to a discussion of Russia's second strike capability.

 

[SKILMATIC]

No. How's that for your evaluation? I'm not wasting even more of my time to find out about a weapon system that is in no way relevant to a discussion of Russia's second strike capability.

O but it does. You see weapons systems has everything to do with a second strike capability and the ability to deliver it. If there is no weapons systems then you can basically render every nuke useless and any other ordinance useless. Weapons systems are what drive the weapon. It is the heart and brain center of the weapon. If there is no heart and brain then you have no weapon. You just have a very expensive and heavy paper weight. Now that I have schooled you once again my love. Do you need a spanking too? Or would you like one? Cause I can deliver. And I would be more than happy too.

 

[Kelzie]

O but it does. You see weapons systems has everything to do with a second strike capability and the ability to deliver it. If there is no weapons systems then you can basically render every nuke useless and any other ordinance useless. Weapons systems are what drive the weapon. It is the heart and brain center of the weapon. If there is no heart and brain then you have no weapon. You just have a very expensive and heavy paper weight. Now that I have schooled you once again my love. Do you need a spanking too? Or would you like one? Cause I can deliver. And I would be more than happy too.

You what? You think you schooled me cause we've got some missiles? You're insane. They're not even nuclear for christ's sake. Who cares? Russia has missiles too. They have second strike capability. Get over it.

 

[SKILMATIC]

You what? You think you schooled me cause we've got some missiles? You're insane. They're not even nuclear for christ's sake. Who cares? Russia has missiles too. They have second strike capability. Get over it.

No no no. Not becasue we have many many missles that are much better and the weapons systems are much better . But becasue you are missing the huge point. Russia has a second strike capability only if they were at war with another country that is inferior to them. They wouldnt have a counter strike capability if they were at war with us. Especially come 2012. Do you know why they woudlnt have even any strike capability in 2012 when it comes to us? Just take a wild guess.

 

[Kelzie]

No no no. Not becasue we have many many missles that are much better and the weapons systems are much better . But becasue you are missing the huge point. Russia has a second strike capability only if they were at war with another country that is inferior to them. They wouldnt have a counter strike capability if they were at war with us. Especially come 2012. Do you know why they woudlnt have even any strike capability in 2012 when it comes to us? Just take a wild guess.

Actually, it's funny that you should mention 2012. I thought it was odd that the Russian number was correct, but the US number wouldn't be accurate until 2012. Turns out the Russian number won't be correct till 2012 either.

"Russia has approximately 7,200 operational nuclear warheads in its active arsenal. This includes about 3,800 strategic warheads, a decrease of some 400 from 2004 due to the withdrawal of approximately 60 ballistic missiles from operational service. Our estimate of operational non-strategic nuclear weapons remains unchanged from last year at 3,400."

from http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=ma05norris

And here's a quote by people a lot more knowlegable than you or I. Although, I guess since it backs up what I'm saying, just you really.

"The threat of a ballistic missile attack on the United States is evolving. Although Russia's arsenal is shrinking, the United States remains vulnerable to a large Russian attack with ICBM and submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) strikes, employing multiple independent re-entry vehicles (MIRVS) and decoys. Meanwhile, China has a small, but growing, ICBM force capable of reaching the United States."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=1695

It's over! If we attacked them, they would destroy us. MAD.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Actually, it's funny that you should mention 2012. I thought it was odd that the Russian number was correct, but the US number wouldn't be accurate until 2012. Turns out the Russian number won't be correct till 2012 either.

"Russia has approximately 7,200 operational nuclear warheads in its active arsenal. This includes about 3,800 strategic warheads, a decrease of some 400 from 2004 due to the withdrawal of approximately 60 ballistic missiles from operational service. Our estimate of operational non-strategic nuclear weapons remains unchanged from last year at 3,400."

from http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=ma05norris

And here's a quote by people a lot more knowlegable than you or I. Although, I guess since it backs up what I'm saying, just you really.

"The threat of a ballistic missile attack on the United States is evolving. Although Russia's arsenal is shrinking, the United States remains vulnerable to a large Russian attack with ICBM and submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) strikes, employing multiple independent re-entry vehicles (MIRVS) and decoys. Meanwhile, China has a small, but growing, ICBM force capable of reaching the United States."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=1695

It's over! If we attacked them, they would destroy us. MAD.

Do you know why these reports are made? They are made to entice the governemnt to up defense spending becasue thats what allows them to put food on the table. We, the engineering and defense contractors always put info like this in the heads of the politicians to increase spending so that we can have fat paychecks. I know this because this is my area of expertise and study. Even if Russia totally disarms and China collapses you will still hear of some report of some possible threat that would entice gov to spend money on military matters.

Now do I think Russia is a worthy opponent? Yes but do I think MAD would happen? Yes, but it wouldnt occur becasue they were able to hit us with nukes it would be of nuclear winter. Again if you would just know as much as I do about military matters and weaponry you would know and understand exactly what I am talking about.

 

[Kelzie]

Do you know why these reports are made? They are made to entice the governemnt to up defense spending becasue thats what allows them to put food on the table. We, the engineering and defense contractors always put info like this in the heads of the politicians to increase spending so that we can have fat paychecks. I know this because this is my area of expertise and study. Even if Russia totally disarms and China collapses you will still hear of some report of some possible threat that would entice gov to spend money on military matters.

Now do I think Russia is a worthy opponent? Yes but do I think MAD would happen? Yes, but it wouldnt occur becasue they were able to hit us with nukes it would be of nuclear winter. Again if you would just know as much as I do about military matters and weaponry you would know and understand exactly what I am talking about.

So instead of saying you know more than these experts that have compiled reports...howbout you prove it? Your word doesn't count for much.

 

[SKILMATIC]

So instead of saying you know more than these experts that have compiled reports...howbout you prove it? Your word doesn't count for much.

When did I ever say I know more than these experts? I belive I said I know why these reports are made. Please read thoroughly my love.

 

[Kelzie]

When did I ever say I know more than these experts? I belive I said I know why these reports are made. Please read thoroughly my love.

Well they're either true or false. Pick one.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Well they're either true or false. Pick one.

O cmon kel, thats like saying you have to be either black or white. This is obviously not the case.

However, you seriously need to stop nit picking because this simply has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I already made my statement and it is very clear on what it says. You can either chose to believe facts or beleive what you want. Its a free country you decide.