US Intercepts Russian Jets

**~~gamercube~~** · 03 Mar 08,, 06:42

But like I said, nuclear warfare isn't a viable option for them. If they nuke us, we destroy them, perhaps more so than they can destroy us.

Russia has the largest number of nukes in the world. They are also the largest country in the world (areawise). Which means that they could nuke the US many times over, and survive the retaliatory nuking by just moving to the other end of their country. I doubt anyone in the world could "defeat" Russia at all. (Of course, the same goes for the US).

**~~huh_what~~** · 03 Mar 08,, 07:00

Originally Posted by gamercube

Russia has the largest number of nukes in the world. They are also the largest country in the world (areawise). Which means that they could nuke the US many times over, and survive the retaliatory nuking by just moving to the other end of their country. I doubt anyone in the world could "defeat" Russia at all. (Of course, the same goes for the US).

If you get into the # of operational, deliverable nukes, the US has far more. Russia can be a thousand times bigger than it is now; in a nuclear war, every major hub with 100,000+ people will probably be hit multiple times.

I doubt that in an all-out nuclear war, ANY country would be able to avoid total destruction, let alone defeat. Actually, scratch that, I have no doubts at all.

**Bella** · 03 Mar 08,, 07:50

Originally Posted by gamercube

Russia has the largest number of nukes in the world. They are also the largest country in the world (areawise). Which means that they could nuke the US many times over, and survive the retaliatory nuking by just moving to the other end of their country. I doubt anyone in the world could "defeat" Russia at all. (Of course, the same goes for the US).

gamercube............

Russia, compared in land mass with the U.S.............
Ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!
Why am I even responding to this????????
Do you have any idea what nukes do??????.....
Move as much as you want!!!!!!!!!
In all out "Nuke Warfare", between the U.S. and Russia .............If it was that simple........"Why didn't the U.S.S.R attack first??"
Obviously, in your opinion, they would have WON!!

**~~gamercube~~** · 03 Mar 08,, 07:54

In all out "Nuke Warfare", between the U.S. and Russia .............If it was that simple........"Why didn't the U.S.S.R attack first??"
Obviously, they would have WON!!

It's not so simple. The economies of both nations would have been devastated (and probably affected most of Europe and North America), sending them back into the Stone Age. But I believe Russia would have been less devastated than the US.

Of course, if what huh_what says is true, and the number of deliverable warheads in Russia is less than those with the US, that would change the outcome.

**Bella** · 03 Mar 08,, 08:27

Originally Posted by gamercube

It's not so simple. The economies of both nations would have been devastated (and probably affected most of Europe and North America), sending them back into the Stone Age. But I believe Russia would have been less devastated than the US.

Of course, if what huh_what says is true, and the number of deliverable warheads in Russia is less than those with the US, that would change the outcome.

I agree!!!

Both countries would be living in the stone-age, but the number of nukes on both sides, plus the fact that the U.S., and Russia knows that to completely devastate each country would rely on extra war-heads to decimate farm, or land that could be occupied!!

Thanks!!

**Firral** · 03 Mar 08,, 10:33

Originally Posted by foxhound_nn

_Stating in ALL threads 'Russia will lose! Russia will lose!' is also a spam. I answered in two threads just to be sure, that you will read it.
_

Do not experience so. It is a typical western manner, to consider all others as savages and losers. I too sometimes am surprised to this mantra: "Russia will lose", "In Russia for backward and weak armed forces", "In Russia unreliable technics", "In Russia planes are capable to fly up only", etc.
Years of cold war were left with a trace, and Russia still the enemy for them. Let our foes it calm themselves. Underestimation of the opponent badly affects first of all itself. Recollect fascist Germany in 1941, they too considered the USSR as a colossus on clay legs. However it we in a toga have appeared in Berlin, instead of they in Moscow.

**~~Adux~~** · 03 Mar 08,, 10:36

Originally Posted by Equilibrium

This is just another instance of history proving an seeming axiom of Russia.

Russia throughout its history has endured territorial contraction and followed by periods of expansion in influence. It has also sought international recognition, whether in the European great power system or during the COld War for its claims as a global power deserving to influence global events.

Russia is never in stasis. I think it is unatural for Russia, a continental power on two continents to not have some ability to influence global events. A continetal sized power, should not be isolated in seething resentment, no matter the degradation of its national power compared to its Soviet days.

good post

**Silent Hunter** · 03 Mar 08,, 21:41

The Soviet leadership, for all their other daft ideas, had lived through the Great Patriotic War and weren't keen for that to happen again.

**Native** · 07 Mar 08,, 18:17

This really isn't a big deal.

I worked in SUPPLOT on the Nimitz from 87-90, 1 Med and 2 West Pacs.

The second westpac we did a covert transit and completely caught the Soviets off gaurd when we popped into SOJ and turned everything off.

I have faith in our BGs self defense. Open Ocean, we are nearly untouchable but closer to the coast obviously changes alot of things.

They have always flown on our BG's, and they have overlown the CV's fairly often. Not that big of a deal really.

**Bella** · 19 Mar 08,, 05:06

Originally Posted by Adux

Gentleman,

The Kodak Moment

Hey Adux,

I was just wondering if you were joking on this picture...
The only thing I see in this picture is a prop-plane. Not a picture of a Russian plane over a Carrier Group.

Thanks!

**Silent Hunter** · 19 Mar 08,, 13:33

That looks very much like a Tu-95 to me. Note the shape, the eight propellers and the AAR probe.

The thing to its left appears to be an F/A-18.

**Sinister** · 19 Mar 08,, 15:32

Originally Posted by lwarmonger

It isn't spamming to state the truth. If Russia takes on the United States, they will lose. I have stated my reasons for saying that. I haven't heard anyone disputing them.

If you have a problem with my argument, then refute it. If you're just upset about my opinion but can't contest it, then I suggest you don't resort to personal attacks to cover the gap.

If war betwen Russa and USA would erupt both country's would be devastated by nuclear weapons , very simple.

If by any means it would be a conventional conflict of course russia's armed forces has no chance too defeat the US force but the US can also not invade Russia aswell so if they are the agressor they can't win either , just my 5 cents.

**Bella** · 21 Mar 08,, 04:55

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter

That looks very much like a Tu-95 to me. Note the shape, the eight propellers and the AAR probe.

The thing to its left appears to be an F/A-18.

Silent Hunter,

I was only joking!! I saw the F-18 to the left....

Anyway, here's a question to everyone!!
From what I know, the U.S., etc..... recognizes that there ships in international waters are considered a sovereign part of the country right?
"IF" these same bombers flew over Canada, or even the U.S. would they be shot down?
To clarify my question,"They flew over the heart of Canada, or the U.S."

Obviously, this is a provoke to war!! If the U.S. decides to play these games with Russia, and fly B-1's, or B-2's, over Russian Naval groups, "How long would it take before it led to WAR?"

Last question..."If Russia decides to do it again, what do you guys think would happen if the U.S. shot down the bombers?"

Thanks!!

**Bella** · 26 Mar 08,, 04:48

By the way, how old is that bomber? It looks like something from WWII.

**Firral** · 26 Mar 08,, 07:54

Originally Posted by Bella

By the way, how old is that bomber? It looks like something from WWII.

There are some types Tu-95 being on now arms:

Тu-142 (Bear-F on classification of NATO) 1963 - the anti-submarine plane created on the basis of Тu-95
Тu-95MR (Bear-E) 1964 - the strategic scout
Tu-95MS (Bear-H) 1979 - planes-carriers of cruise missiles X-55

It is one of two types of planes in the world (together with B-52) being on service continuously more half a century.
For comparison: last plane B-52H has been let out in October, 26th, 1962, i.e. a year earlier the beginning of release Bear-F and for 17 years earlier Bear-H.

Listen more to the journalists and the politicians shouting about old Russian planes.