Russia 'goes to war' with Georgia (2 Viewers)

Slidey

But pieces of what?
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
6,600
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Starcraftmazter said:
Let me know if you're interested in a serious argument instead of just throwing meaningless insults around in an effort to detract from the subject at hand.
Yeah, sorry, the thing is you're a conspiracy nut.

You've got a vendetta against America so you make up pseudofacts about them. I shouldn't need to debunk your rubbish every time you post it - I can leave any rational reader to do that themselves.

And I'm loathe to use ad hominem arguments, but the fact that you think evolution is a scientific conspiracy has ample weight in this argument; it shows how your mind works (or doesn't).

You can throw around irrational claims in the guise of 'facts' all day, but at the end of it all, it's up to the reader to make up their own mind. Knowing where you come from when you make up this garbage is very helpful. An example is your retarded grasp of economics: you think that markets grow at a linear rate, perpetually, and if ever shaken will collapse irreparably. Yeah, because that really happens in the real world. :rolleyes:
 

Aryanbeauty

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
968
Location
Bayview Heights
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Starcraftmazter said:
Actually, it has happened several times.
OK show us your proof that Chinese submarine got near US Aircraft Carrier SEVERAL times. I knew of one incident with USS Kitty Hawk.



Russian HDI is considered as High. As for poverty, you should check what percentage of people in USA live under poverty before claiming Russians are living in poverty. And you should check the GNI index for both countries.

Enough with your BS please, get a clue.
Human Development Index ranking is divided in to three, High, Medium and Low. Among those classified as high, Russia is at the 4th LOWEST, ranked 67 in the world along with other 3rd world poor countries like Brazil, Macedonia and Albania.

Poor in Russia means dirt POOR, beyond our imagination of POOR in the US or Australia. http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

It is not surprising many russians prefers to be prostitute and strawberry picker in London and Europe than living in Oil rich Russia :lol:
 

Admiral Nelson

Generalfeldmarschall
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
132
Location
The Shire
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Starcraftmazter said:
No, it would be SCO vs NATO, and everyone else would be neutral. And the west cannot economically isolate Russia, or their economies will instantly collapse, from the lack of trade.
Europe's economy would be adversely affected, but it wouldn't collapse.


Tanks: Russia has laser-targeting systems, anti-projectile defenses, reactive armour, and autoleaders on their latest tanks. USA has none of this.
The US uses Chobham armour, which is better and more expensive than ERA. ERA is only useful against things like HEAT rounds, and offer little protection against sabot rounds using depleted uranium. The US targetting system is definitely better than the Russians - it can and hasd been used against tanks from beyond 2 kilometres with consistant results.

Planes: Russia has 3 dimensional thrust vectoring engines, 400KMs+ radars (on mig-31s) and missiles with 400km+ range. Plasma Stealth technology. Successful testing of forward-swept wings (su-47), and USA once again, has none of this.
If memory serves correctly, they've the same or equivalents thereof.

Ships: All russian ships have missiles which outrange US counterparts by 3-4 times. This is a simple fact which leads to the simple conclusion that any US fleet would be destroyed before it is within range to engage. Heavy cruisers like Kirov have the capability to engage and take out entire CAGs.[/QUOTE]

I'd like to see some figures and facts here. It's irrelevent, as USN planes have a longer range still.

Subs: Akula II, 'nuff siad. No sub is quieter.
It's a pity they've only a few, and the US has far better trained crews and maintained ships.

Pretty much, yes. Just look at Australian senate enquiries into the F-35, and you'll know what I mean.
The one that concluded it wasn't in Australia's best interests to have the F-35, not that the F-35 was useless?


I'll reply to some of these later. I'm the first to fly the Russian flag here, but I will admit, the US has better stuff than the Russians in most regards, even if it's only mildly.
 

Farfour

Banned
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
172
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Russia being painted as the big evil overlord bad guy by the USA is patently ridiculous and essentially the Americans trying their hand again at warmongering. However, Snowjob here having a furtive wank about the glories of communism and interjecting his own idiotic takes on economics (Labour theory of value, anyone?) shows how little he knows about the situation.

That Admiral dude has the right take on the situation, I'd wager. Well argued posts with no conspiracy theory bullshit.
 

Slidey

But pieces of what?
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
6,600
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Aryanbeauty said:
OK show us your proof that Chinese submarine got near US Aircraft Carrier SEVERAL times. I knew of one incident with USS Kitty Hawk.



Human Development Index ranking is divided in to three, High, Medium and Low. Among those classified as high, Russia is at the 4th LOWEST, ranked 67 in the world along with other 3rd world poor countries like Brazil, Macedonia and Albania.

Poor in Russia means dirt POOR, beyond our imagination of POOR in the US or Australia. http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

It is not surprising many russians prefers to be prostitute and strawberry picker in London and Europe than living in Oil rich Russia :lol:
Well, um, Starcraftmazter's rose-coloured view of Russia certainly doesn't stand up to reality, but Russia is doing significantly better than it was 8 years ago. It's 'poor' in some sense, yes, but not 'dirt poor'. It's better off than India, China, Brazil, which are in turn better off than the Middle East and Africa.

So if Russia is "dirt poor", what's Africa?
 

Aryanbeauty

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
968
Location
Bayview Heights
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Slidey said:
Well, um, Starcraftmazter's rose-coloured view of Russia certainly doesn't stand up to reality, but Russia is doing significantly better than it was 8 years ago. It's 'poor' in some sense, yes, but not 'dirt poor'. It's better off than India, China, Brazil, which are in turn better off than the Middle East and Africa.

So if Russia is "dirt poor", what's Africa?
Starvation.
 

Slidey

But pieces of what?
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
6,600
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Haha holy fuck, Russia wants to take on Israel now? What, will they enlist Iran and launch a Jihad on the Western infidels?

Any moral high ground you had with Georgia was just lost, Russia.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
842
Location
Sydney, NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Slidey said:
Yeah, sorry, the thing is you're a conspiracy nut.

You've got a vendetta against America so you make up pseudofacts about them. I shouldn't need to debunk your rubbish every time you post it - I can leave any rational reader to do that themselves.
That's funny, none of these allegations seem to have stopped you here. Argue when convenient eh?

Slidey said:
but the fact that you think evolution is a scientific conspiracy has ample weight in this argument; it shows how your mind works (or doesn't).
The fact that you think that I think that evolution is a scientific conspiracy, proves you are full of shit.

Slidey said:
You can throw around irrational claims in the guise of 'facts' all day, but at the end of it all, it's up to the reader to make up their own mind.
You can throw around irrational insults in the guise of 'rebuttal' all day, but at the end of it all, it's up to the reader to make up their own mind.

Slidey said:
you think that markets grow at a linear rate
No you blundering fool, I am stating the exact opposite. For the last time, for those of us who don't understand economics (ie. you), the simple concept upon which the US economy is based, is that it is driven by perpetual growth at an exponential rate, at the cost of exponential use of natural resources, which by definition are finite, hence it is doomed to collapse.

Aryanbeauty said:
OK show us your proof that Chinese submarine got near US Aircraft Carrier SEVERAL times. I knew of one incident with USS Kitty Hawk.
Ok,
http://starbulletin.com/2008/08/17/news/story09.html

The U.S. Navy League-Honolulu Council, nine retired Navy admirals, naval warfare experts and other civic organizations filed an amicus brief in support of the Navy. The brief refers to two separate incidents in the past two years where a Chinese diesel electric submarine approached a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Taiwan Strait and was within torpedo range of the ship before being detected by the U.S. ships.
Aryanbeauty said:
Human Development Index ranking is divided in to three, High, Medium and Low. Among those classified as high, Russia is at the 4th LOWEST, ranked 67 in the world along with other 3rd world poor countries like Brazil, Macedonia and Albania.
Lowest of the highest? Haha.

So according to you, unless they are coming first, they are poor and unhealthy?
And the term "3rd world" has no meaning in the 21st century. The three worlds no longer exist as they did during the cold war. And why are you implying that Brazil, Macedonia and Albania are poor? What is your definition of poverty?

Aryanbeauty said:
Poor in Russia means dirt POOR, beyond our imagination of POOR in the US or Australia. http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
Hey look - that site lists Russia under high human development, alongside your USA!

Aryanbeauty said:
It is not surprising many russians prefers to be prostitute and strawberry picker in London and Europe than living in Oil rich Russia :lol:
It is not surprising many people think you are an idiot.

Admiral Nelson said:
Europe's economy would be adversely affected, but it wouldn't collapse.
Mainland Europe's will perhaps not, USA and UK are probably doomed. An even bigger problem of exports will occur.

Admiral Nelson said:
The US uses Chobham armour, which is better and more expensive than ERA. ERA is only useful against things like HEAT rounds, and offer little protection against sabot rounds using depleted uranium.
I had a good stats diagram shows Russian and US armour and penetration by various projectiles, but I lost it...

Russians have tested their latest armour against the exact same cannon the abrams use, with DU ammunition, and it failed to penetrate even at relatively close range.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L0SPYJNhII
Key points:
Weight: T-90: 47t ; Abrams: 64t
T-90: More compact
- Abrams armour was good in the 1st Iraq war because Iraq had obsolete tank ammunition. In the present Iraq war, their armour is easily penetrated by various projectiles.
- In a test, T-90 was fired at from 200m with 6 rounds of the latest abrams ammunition & identical calibre rounds, followed by a modern grenade launcher. After all this, it's armour failed to be fully penetrated, and the tank remained in perfect working condition.
- The main unit which provides electricity for Abram's on-board electronics, is easy to penetrate with an appropriate calibre weapon, as it is not shielded by the main armour as well as the interior of the tank, whereas the T-90 does not have this weakness.
- T-90 has an active protection system, capable of shooting down projectiles, such as various types of rocket propelled grenades, rocket launchers, and other projectiles of the sort. Abrams do not have this capability.
- The range of a T-90 is 5kms at an operational 100% accuracy, either firing still or while moving
- The calibre of the rounds on the Abrams and T-90 is virtually the same,
- DU rounds not used anymore in Russia due to adverse health affects on both the tank crew, and the environment on which they are used, Russia uses improved tungsten penetrators, which use kinetic energy to easily penetrate enemy armour.
- T-90 armament contains shrapnel projectiles, which are useful for eliminating enemy infantry, while abrams do not have anything of the sort.
- T-90 uses precise, laser-guided fire control, holds the record for the most targets hit in the shortest time, while moving. This occurred at an international presentation, stats:
Time taken: 54 seconds
Targets destroyed: 7
Target Range: 2.5km
Speed of t-90: 25km/h
- T-90 is renouned for being capable of comfortable operating in the harshest of environments, including deserts, marshlands, mud, snow and heavy vegetation. It is fully amphibious (unlike abrams), and is un-matched for mobility and duration of service in such environments.
- With the latest version of the T-90 having GPS navigation, the abram's last remaining lead over the t-90 has disappeared.


One other important thing I remembered here. The Abrams is ridiculously heavy, so heavy that it's impossible to transport it through any other means but by ship. This makes it rather difficult to get them out to the battle zone quickly.

Admiral Nelson said:
The US targetting system is definitely better than the Russians - it can and hasd been used against tanks from beyond 2 kilometres with consistant results.
I don't see how it's possible to improve on laser guidence - something which the US doesn't have on tanks.

Admiral Nelson said:
If memory serves correctly, they've the same or equivalents thereof.
Not sure what you're referring to there.

Admiral Nelson said:
I'd like to see some figures and facts here. It's irrelevant, as USN planes have a longer range still.
I'm pretty sure all the ships of both the Russian and US navies, including their arms are listed on warfare.ru, which also contains detailed statistics about the weapons in use by the ships.

I'd also like to draw your attention to this article,
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4279842.html

Admiral Nelson said:
It's a pity they've only a few, and the US has far better trained crews and maintained ships.
Better trained perhaps - for now. I can't imagine this would stay the same in the near future. It is a pity there are few of them, however in the last 1-2 years, a lot of new ships and submarines have been laid down.

Currently there is one AkulaII, 1 Severodvins and 3 Lada subs under construction. Severodvins is further improvement on Akula, and Lada bears similarities, and is also said to be very silent.

Admiral Nelson said:
The one that concluded it wasn't in Australia's best interests to have the F-35, not that the F-35 was useless?
Yes, that was very much so to my liking.

However there were others (perhaps these were US senate enquires), which explored several key problems with the F-35 program. Mainly, the cost for it grew and grew without end, while it's specifications had to be dumbed-down again and again, specifically it's RCS has been pushed up more than once since the project started.

Admiral Nelson said:
I'll reply to some of these later. I'm the first to fly the Russian flag here, but I will admit, the US has better stuff than the Russians in most regards, even if it's only mildly.
There are only several areas of military technology where the US leads, and these would be large-scale electronics development (ie. carriers), AESA radars (massive work being done on these by Russia presently), supercruise thrusters, RAC coatings...and that's pretty much it.


One important technology I forgot to mention is the Shkval torpedo. This is one of the most amazing pieces of technology - a torpedo, which far far exceeds the speed of anything else which travels underwater. It is by far the deadliest underwater weapon. USA have spent massive amounts of money attempting to design their own supercavitating torpedo to match it's speed, but they have failed - this is another example of where USA's R&D dollars are going...down the drain.

Aryanbeauty said:
Starvation.
Starvation is the state of being deprived of food. No human can live in starvation, because they would die pretty quickly. No country is staving, or it's people would be dead in a few weeks.

Slidey said:
Haha holy fuck, Russia wants to take on Israel now? What, will they enlist Iran and launch a Jihad on the Western infidels?
They are simply stating they will sell weapons to countries such as Iran and Syria - none of this is new...
 
Last edited:

sam04u

Comrades, Comrades!
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,867
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Slidey said:
Haha holy fuck, Russia wants to take on Israel now? What, will they enlist Iran and launch a Jihad on the Western infidels?

Any moral high ground you had with Georgia was just lost, Russia.
I don't think you get the implications of this Slidey. Russia has always sold weapons to middle eastern countries. Albeit, they were generally pre-soviet production weaponry. What this suggests is Russia will be selling modern weapons to the nations who've been longing for them.

This will be the first time in history for this to happen. During the major Arab-Israeli wars, the Soviet Union was the best friend of Israel, and offered them weapons en masse at discounted prices. But look how Israel repays Russia. By training, arming, and befriending Georgia which has recently commited an act of aggression against the russian people. Hell, the Georgian Minister of Defence is an Israeli.

Otherwise, I see no problem with this. Russia is pretty much just taking Israel off it's friend list. They wont attack Israel, they wont threaten Israel, they just wont be doing them anymore favours.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
842
Location
Sydney, NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Iran has already been sold reasonably modern Tor-m1 air defense systems, which are effective against precision missiles at short range.

I *think* they had a deal on S-300PMU2s, but I doubt Russia will give anyone S-400s, for any price. I'm not sure what other arms Russia can sell to the middle eastern countries which they can afford and which would make a difference. Perhaps modern assault rifles?


Also, South Ossetia is now to become part of Russia.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4635843.ece

Now perhaps, the people of South Ossetia can live in peace, without having their own government kill them and destroy their lives.
 
Last edited:

Captain Hero

Banned
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
659
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Starcraftmazter said:
No you blundering fool, I am stating the exact opposite. For the last time, for those of us who don't understand economics (ie. you), the simple concept upon which the US economy is based, is that it is driven by perpetual growth at an exponential rate, at the cost of exponential use of natural resources, which by definition are finite, hence it is doomed to collapse.
That is the grossest and most idiotic oversimplification of the economic growth of the US that I've ever read. Did you get this off a Socialist Alternative poster? You've completely ignored any factors of an information based economy. What's that, labour theory of value again?

Right, I forgot, there is no title higher than worker.

EDIT: Do you even know what exponent/exponential means. That word, I do not think it means what you think it means. A curved increase != exponential otherwise they'd have a deteriorating GDP if this fantasy situation was what you're decrying it as. Not that GDP is any method for measuring a nation's wealth due to the fact that it takes into account internal governmental spending, so if the US builds 15 8Bn widgets they are somehow the most wealthy nation on earth larr deeee darrrr.

EDIT2: Growth rate for the year 07-08 = 3.3%
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
842
Location
Sydney, NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Captain Hero said:
Capped but from googling the video I'm assuming it's the stock standard lambasting of the Fed for loaning out money to the government. Know all these things already but I'm skeptical that the sky is falling.
It goes much further to proclaim that, and explains my point about the US economy being dependent on the exponential use of natural resources (which is impossible), hence it's bound to collapse at some point in time in the future.
 

Captain Hero

Banned
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
659
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
What you're claiming though is t - T for the collapse time. It's a fairly straightforward concept that empires crumble and nations change and America will fall someday, but whether that'll be in the next 100 years is laughable.

America != Rome
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
842
Location
Sydney, NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Captain Hero said:
What you're claiming though is t - T for the collapse time. It's a fairly straightforward concept that empires crumble and nations change and America will fall someday, but whether that'll be in the next 100 years is laughable.
I don't think it's laughable at all. The current economic crisis has the potential to cause a complete economic collapse in USA.

And to make it perfectly clear, I'm not saying it will happen in the very distant future, I'm saying it will happen sooner rather than later, mainly due to the supply of oil being outstripped by demand. Such a key resource has the potential to cause the problems which exist in the fundamentally flawed US economy.
 

bigboyjames

Banned
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
1,265
Location
aus
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Captain Hero said:
What you're claiming though is t - T for the collapse time. It's a fairly straightforward concept that empires crumble and nations change and America will fall someday, but whether that'll be in the next 100 years is laughable.

America != Rome
I don't think Roman Empire is a fair comparison. The English (UK) empire is a better comparison, I think. It's not that US would collapse dramatically like USSR or Nazi Germany, it's more like it would go quietly to the background. I think by as soon as 2030s US won't be the top dog anymore and terror campaigns / bully wars would be unthinkable for US by then. This will happen because China rises exponentially which makes them today a power, in 2020s will be a superpower and by 2030s would be the top dog by a fair margin. It was not like US had the resources to become the superpower they became it was more like the circumstances that drove it to this point, two world wars that rampage the rest of the world left it unaffected, while an intelligent policy to bring the brightest minds from all over the world made the trick to make US an economic superpower. There is a reason why America is being heralded as the mother of most of the innovations of the 20th century.

But, i only see this future with a obama like leader. however, if someone like mcsame gets elected a few times over the next 2 decades one can only predict the worst for the United states.
 
Last edited:

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Nuke em all an let Gawd sought em out
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top