Russia-Georgia-Ottesia News Explanations PLEASE?

Discussion in 'Warbirds International' started by looseleaf, Aug 11, 2008.

  1. Uncles

    Uncles Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,787
    Location:
    Post-American USA
    BTW, Russia is correct to feel threatened by the USA (oops, I mean West). However, our nations can always talk. Things are never as bad as they may really seem.

    Well, when the Russian troops at checkpoints referred to the Georgian-controlled areas as the "American" side, that was surprising :)
     
  2. Uncles

    Uncles Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,787
    Location:
    Post-American USA
    Israel is our ally, not our slave, nor our master :) Can you comprehend that? :)
     
  3. -al---

    -al--- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,848
    Location:
    Poznań
    no, they can't
    their culture and perception doesn't allow such words
     
  4. Fucketeer

    Fucketeer Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,280
    LMAO! "Ally", just like Sparta for the Greeks. Sober up meshuggah.
     
  5. Zembla JG13

    Zembla JG13 FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    4,791
    Location:
    .be
    I'll take that as a compliment I guess, little point in doing anything else with it.

    It's no news there are (sometimes radically) differing perceptions from the East and from the West. But there's always two sides to one truth.

    Either way, you asked a couple of questions, I asked a couple of questions. You didn't answer mine though. I am genuinely curious.

    Because, believe it or not, I have no interest in this conversation playing out in any particular way. I'm here to learn, because that's all I can do, to best understand my fellow man. And then all I can do is hope the other will do the same.

    -Z
     
  6. Boroda

    Boroda FH Community Officer

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2000
    Messages:
    5,838
    Location:
    Moscow
    And Moldavia boosted up dill prices.

    This is a good example of broken logical link: A+B!=C.


    Let me explain.

    If US launches a full-scale nuclear attack against Russia - their first target will be our ICBM positions. I think it's obvious, the main goal will be to minimize our retaliation capability. If they succeed - they'll knock out most of our missiles, but not 100% - there are some mobile launchers, on trucks and railway cars. So you should be sure that at least 5-10 missiles will be launched in return. ABM purpose is to "thin" this missiles to minimize the damage made by our retaliation strike. If they will be sure that they'll withstand it - they may feel like pressing the button. So this ABM system breaks the balance and brings instability.

    I like the difference in attitudes: according to 1972 ABM treaty US tried to build ABM shield over their "missile farms" in North Dakota, while USSR protected Moscow, a city with 10 million people.
     
  7. rgreat

    rgreat FH Developer

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    25,626
    Location:
    Moscow,Russia
    This.
     
  8. Zembla JG13

    Zembla JG13 FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    4,791
    Location:
    .be
    Thats my point exactly. The two events don't have to be correlated. It's possible one didn't necessarily was influenced by the other.

    On the other hand, the opposite holds true as well.


    True, but thats what makes it so dangerous, because you guys will try to launch your missiles before they're blasted to smithereens ;)

    Still, the whole nuclear MAD thing, reminds me a lot of a cat chasing its own tail.

    -Z
     
  9. Red Ant

    Red Ant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4,913
    Location:
    Germany
    Even if a first strike would catch all your ICBM's on the ground (unlikely), you'd still be able to respond with a heck of a lot more than "5-10" missiles. What about your SSBN's? There are those who claim the the Navy knows the whereabouts of most Russian boomers at all times ... I'm not buying it. How many missiles does a Typhoon class sub carry? How many of those (or similar subs) have you got? My bet is that what you'll have left would still be amply sufficient to guarantee the end of America as a nation.
    I really do not believe that in this day and age, anyone is silly enough to believe that nuclear war is somehow winnable.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2008
  10. mumble

    mumble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    in a bar
  11. rgreat

    rgreat FH Developer

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    25,626
    Location:
    Moscow,Russia
    Will you put your, and your family lives on it?
    I will not.

    P.S. Subs are nearly always being followed by other subs.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2008
  12. Fucketeer

    Fucketeer Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,280
    This.
     
  13. hugo baskervill

    hugo baskervill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    566
    Location:
    Březnice u Zlína, Czech Republic
    Looks like Russian soldiers are coming back to Ossetia and Abchazia. It is at least possible place here any OSN observers and soldiers?

    At least they aren't so mad to capture whole Georgia in one massive attack.
     
  14. grobar

    grobar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2000
    Messages:
    3,497
    Location:
    Пловдив, Тракия, България
    Zembla, i gave up because your answers mostly answer somewhat other questions, not the ones i posed. i guess you you dont understand my arguments the same way i do. in your own realm you make sense, in mine - i do.


    ok, i will try then.

    we can read between the lines.
    its rather naive to expect that the bad guys (the US) will first say what they intend and then do it, no?

    i dont think they will be putting nukes. the problem is about tilting the balance of MAD. this will allow THEM the psychological comfort of feeling more safe and result in that they act with even more impunity.
    it doesnt have to happen anything like a nuclear war for this shield to have an enthusiastic effect on american politicians and generals.


    come on, that is stupid. Poland and Cz can boost their conventional defences, buy rockets, gadgets and stuff without this being tied to having to take in the US nuclear program.
    Both countries are already members of NATO, they would get equipment and training support if they ask for it. From members other than the US if necessary (i think France or Germany would be glad to avert the shield threat).

    As far as I know, the missile shield is not a NATO project.
    Also why do they still feel unprotected if they are in NATO the world's most powerful armies have pledged to come their rescue in case of invasion? isnt that a deterrent enough to the russians?
    thats why to me a desire of theirs to beef up the army even further looks more like sabre-rattling toward the neighbour. feeling unprotected is just an excuse to the nato partners.

    for practical politics?
    dont tell me all these countries send troops in iraq because they care about democracy there, the fate of suffering iraqis, bla-bla
    they do it, because who they please influences their decisions
    is this more principled?
    lets try to be consistent, ok?

    besides the Polish (especially) politics in the last 10 years has been just a sequence of provocation exchanges with Russia. in this sense, who they anger definitely influences their decisions (let me make this even more clear: they determinedly try to anger Russia).


    huh?
    yes, they can choose for themselves (why Iran can't?) and they chose to sacrifice part of their sovereignty: by placing a military capability operated by a foreign country.
    hosting a foreign base is a very specific loss of some of your sovereignty, no? its not in the realm of hypothetical discussions anymore.
    i agree they can decide to do that, but my whole posting was about why they decided to do it.
    they had less bellicose options too.


    that is quite wrong. maybe thats the "rage" of European anti-war population but do not transfer it to the middle eastern people. there feelings run from much longer ago and much deeper, you need to get better information, sorry.



    well, all the lingo coming out of the pentagon and the english-language TVs points in the direction of russian rogueness. its almost palpable.
    it may take just a few years for people to get completely used to it.

    Of course, 'rogue' is just a branding label imposed on those who object to following what the US and its supporters (sorry, i mean the 'international community') see as their world order.
    therefore, Russia is exactly fitting the profile. however it is way too strong and dangerous to antagonise that much! thats the only reason its not rogue yet. but one doesnt know when the guys in white house will completely loose their senses.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2008
  15. -al---

    -al--- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,848
    Location:
    Poznań
    In case of a retaliation strike you're family will most likely be already dead.
     
  16. hardy

    hardy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2002
    Messages:
    16,608
    Location:
    Saratov, Russia
  17. Zembla JG13

    Zembla JG13 FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    4,791
    Location:
    .be
    Well yeah, as you so succinctly put, difference of perception. Towards us, the US doesn't really seem much like the bad guy. Of course they made some bad moves, but everyone has. For that same matter though, Russia doesn't seem like the bad guy either. We're kinda stuck in the middle. Quite literally.

    You have a point on this one. They will grow even more conceited. That said, this balance exists in the head, and is reminiscent of the cold war, which I thought was actually over. We've been having this whole discussion assuming there still is one, but there is not. Sure sometimes diplomatic relations take a hit, other times they're riding high peaks, that doesn't mean people should start thinking in these lines again. In my opinion the whole concept of global thermonuclear war is something best kept in the past. There's no winner, there's no point, it's actually very much a war out of spite. Which is the worst reason to destroy something for.


    I meant that in the way as to raise the opposite question. Your question was, "why should they?" my question was "why shouldn't they?". Admittedly, I may have gotten sidetracked which could've degressed from that message :p

    Maybe. The conventional should act as a sufficient deterrent indeed. I genuinely feel nuclear weapons' sole purpose of being is as a deterrent weapon. No good can ever come of deploying them.

    Possibly, must admit, haven't followed up on it much. It only catches my attention when stuff like this starts to happen :)

    The point I was trying to make is that it would detract from their sovereignty as well if they had let themselves be bullied into a decision. If they can't make their own decisions, then who can?

    I know what plays. I've read some books about the subject in particular. However, I still disagree. The current middle-Eastern rage is mainly fueled by extremists standpoints. And those need a culprit, and obviously, agressors are an easy culprit. There's still more moderate-minded people than extremists I'd hope.

    But, then again, I could read about what happened over there in the past, because it happened a long time ago, and there were various different sources to examine till you found the truth. Nowadays there's so much news, and so much crap, it's difficult to get accurate detailed data. Add to that that I haven't really kept tabs on it much, and that I don't like spending my days combing through the junk that seeps from the internet with a fine combe, nor would I say the sources for my ME news would be 100% truthful 100% of the time.


    Pane et circensem was partially so succesful because it was very simple. Same goes with the rogue branding etc, it's something everybody can understand, same as axis of evil :)

    Thing about the guys in the White House is though, there's very different sorts of people trying to get there. So you never really know who'se up next, or moreso, how they'd rule. In general the American public hates war as much as the next guy. So it's down to the White House/Pentagon/Congress etc indeed. But, that way the choice of president means very much for international relations, and as coincidence wants, Bush is very much a wartime president. So the next seat is bound to be a lot different.

    Or at least, that's what I hope.

    -Z
     
  18. rgreat

    rgreat FH Developer

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Messages:
    25,626
    Location:
    Moscow,Russia
    Without 'defensive' missilies around russia there will be no strike and retaliation.
     
  19. hardy

    hardy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2002
    Messages:
    16,608
    Location:
    Saratov, Russia
    Fly-in time from Polish missile base to Central Russia (Moscow, SPb and other capital cities) is about 5 minutes.
    In comparison, fly-in time for Tridents from Ohio-class SSN on duty is about 10-15 minutes.
    "Usual" ICBM from american base can reach Russia in about a 30 min.

    So.
    if anybody (heh) wanna srtike Russian key-centers from Polish missile silo, Russians simply HAVE NO ANY TIME TO REACT.
    Pretty scenario.

    1 rocket with nuke warhead and 1 with EI wide-impact.
    and we have totally lost a 5 major cities or command centers.
    And then other side can launch 10min ETA Tridents and 30min ETA Minutemans II without any apprehensive of "retaliation".

    Pretty damn good scenario, yeah.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2008
  20. bot

    bot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Messages:
    112
    Location:
    Bunktown MO