Originally posted by SteveDaPirate
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Does the world seem really screwed up at the moment?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostTRIDENTS are SLBMS. I know you're lawyering these days and married but ... shame, Hitesh, you've been whipped.
The technology is not mature yet. As of today, a conventional armed TRIDENT cannot take out a Russian silo but we have restricted ourselves from ever developing that technology.
Never mind the Russians. What about the Chinese? What about the Iranians? What about the Pakistanis? Why do we restrict ourselves from conventionally taking out those threats? Why do we have to rely on nukes to take out their arsenals in time critical missions?
Their SSBNs are extremely viable and have resumed Cold War scheduled patrols. My assumption, and would be a valid one, that they're ready for bear.
Their doctrine states that they have 30 days (that's how long a crisis would develop) to bring to full alert. At such a point, I don't think money matters much. They're assuming they're going to die.
However, to answer your point, they're not throwing decommissioned nukes into the Volga because they can't work. They're dismantling them which means that they've got parts galore. All they have to do is to canablize their decomissioning nukes.
And they've added features to overcome BMD. The point is the Russians are never as strong as we believe but they're never as weak as we believe. Push comes to shove, they will get their birds into the air. They've always did.
You mean like B52s, B1s, and B2s, and cruise missile strikes during the Kuwait and Iraq Wars?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Blademaster View PostRussia doesn't use silos anymore. They use mobile ICBMs now.
Originally posted by Blademaster View PostWe always have that ability against those countries.... CVNs.
Originally posted by Blademaster View PostYes at the cost of the rest of their navy which means that Russia can't project power and instead waste more money on nuke subs that doesn't really do much in the conventional sphere of geopolitics.
Originally posted by Blademaster View Post30 days is enough to remachine and refurbish the nukes? I thought it takes more.
Originally posted by Blademaster View PostI thought those parts are useless because of the radiation and emissions from radioactive decay. Not only that, you have stated repeatedly that the cores and charges need to be reshape every couple years.
Originally posted by Blademaster View PostYes at the expense of everything else.
Originally posted by Blademaster View PostThe difference with those weapons is that the Russians had more time to identify whether it was conventional attack or not. With ICBMs you had no way of knowing in time.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostThey got rid of a terrorist threat who has historically shown that he would embark on misguided adventures when he thought he could pull it off without extreme costs, starting with the Iran-Iraq War, the Bush Sr assassination attempt, to issuing chemical weapons release orders on non-existing stock.
Saddam's biggest folly was the Kuwait invasion.
But sir, to grant the devil his due, Iraq had US support against the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war.
The Bush Sr assassination attempt has so much contrary material online that one would never know what is the truth.
But in hind sight now, with the way Iraq has turned out, it appears that mad men can only be controlled by a madman (Saddam). At least then Iraq was a secular nation, while today there is genocide agaisnt all minorities by the sunni ISIS.
Cheers!...on the rocks!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by lemontree View PostOne would have thought that the Gulf War 1 would have kept him in check, since it was quite a "shock and awe" even for those who just watched the war on TV.
Saddam's biggest folly was the Kuwait invasion.
Originally posted by lemontree View PostBut sir, to grant the devil his due, Iraq had US support against the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war.
Originally posted by lemontree View PostThe Bush Sr assassination attempt has so much contrary material online that one would never know what is the truth.
Originally posted by lemontree View PostBut in hind sight now, with the way Iraq has turned out, it appears that mad men can only be controlled by a madman (Saddam). At least then Iraq was a secular nation, while today there is genocide agaisnt all minorities by the sunni ISIS.Chimo
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostIraqis are killing Iraqis. Saddam is not doing a 11 Sept against the Americans.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View PostAs much as I hate to see the endless slaughter in the Middle East, as long as Syria/Iraq remains a meat grinder that sucks in all the guys with extremist tendencies, the rest of the world is safer.Last edited by Doktor; 08 Aug 14,, 17:09.No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
precisely. militants, unfortunately, are a renewable resource. extremism breeds further extremism.There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostAnd Beslan and Kosovo and the Chinese would have dropped the anchor on the other side. Putin restored Russian pride if not Russian power."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
Originally posted by snapper View PostSir I do not believe that was necessary, merely the exposure of the Soviet regimes crimes may have proved sufficient. The rest they would do for themselves.
As the old saying goes, Putin is a sonufabitch but he's our sonufabitch. Nothing unifies the Russian people, even the Ukranian people, more than a European invasion/occupation/subjugation. Some will welcome the Europeans, but I suspect most will resist."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View PostAs much as I hate to see the endless slaughter in the Middle East, as long as Syria/Iraq remains a meat grinder that sucks in all the guys with extremist tendencies, the rest of the world is safer.
The world will never be a safer place if they are left alone.
Unfortunately, India has always sat on the fence on such issues.
Cheers!...on the rocks!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by lemontree View PostI disagree. If the world sits and watches, then the only ones left in the Middle east will be the extremists who will come after the rest of the world. How can we forget what the Taliban did to Afghanistan and how the extremist AQ came after the US?
The world will never be a safer place if they are left alone.
Unfortunately, India has always sat on the fence on such issues.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Vargas View PostIn my opinion, it is great that ISIS is being shown so much in the media. This shows people how dangerous Islam can be, and how it will increasingly become more like this if we don't do anything to stop it, specially with the way the Muslims are getting increasingly more radicalized in Western Europe and the number of conversions rise (the converts usually being among the most radicals). Someone might say "Ah, not all Muslims are like that" and that is absolutely obvious, but that is not the point. The minorities that make revolutions and the minorities who take charge. No matter what people on Earth, there is always a tiny minority in leadership and in a increasingly wimp West, the ones that look stronger are the ones who eventually will get a hold of power by imposing their force and spirit.
Notice that we haven't had a single "muslim terror attack" on continental US since 9-11? We've had plenty of "isolated incidents," "work place violence," "lone wolf attacks" by "social outcasts." Basically anything but "Islamic terror."
"Islamic terror" does not exist in the world of western multiculturalism."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
Originally posted by gunnut View PostThe problem with your theory is that the western "multicultural" socialist will just declare "ISIS is not Islam."
Notice that we haven't had a single "muslim terror attack" on continental US since 9-11? We've had plenty of "isolated incidents," "work place violence," "lone wolf attacks" by "social outcasts." Basically anything but "Islamic terror."
"Islamic terror" does not exist in the world of western multiculturalism."We are all special cases." - Camus
Comment
-
Originally posted by Squirrel View PostThe moment you start calling it "Islamic" is the moment you legitimize their cause and alienate the majority of moderates that don't want those turds claiming "same team!" whether you see it or not, it makes a difference.
When someone kills a bunch of people in the name of Allah, moderate muslims need to hunt him down and put him away. No ands, ifs, or buts."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
Comment