Putin says Russia's military strength unmatchable - page 4.

tee-rex

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 526

Quote from: bryant.coleman on February 23, 2015, 07:36:48 AM

Quote from: tee-rex on February 23, 2015, 06:56:53 AM

A small correction. After (or before) she tries to invade Iran, she will be assassinated by CIA like Kennedy... Provided she becomes the president in the first place, which I doubt. I'm always lolling when I hear this abbreviation, sounds like fetus in a pot.

It is almost 99.9% certain that she will be the Democrat candidate in 2016. And with the recent demographic changes, which have occurred in the past few decades, it is almost impossible for the GOP to win presidential elections anymore.

I heard her say that she was not going to run for the presidency (as being too old and too tired of politics), though she might have been just flirting with her electorate.

Balthazar

legendary

Activity: 3108

Merit: 1359

Quote from: bryant.coleman on February 23, 2015, 07:36:48 AM

Quote from: tee-rex on February 23, 2015, 06:56:53 AM

A small correction. After (or before) she tries to invade Iran, she will be assassinated by CIA like Kennedy... Provided she becomes the president in the first place, which I doubt. I'm always lolling when I hear this abbreviation, sounds like fetus in a pot.

It is almost 99.9% certain that she will be the Democrat candidate in 2016. And with the recent demographic changes, which have occurred in the past few decades, it is almost impossible for the GOP to win presidential elections anymore.

This would be correct for direct voting... But I think you forgot that there is no presidential elections in the USA. President isn't elected by voters, he's appointed by the Electoral College. That's how Bush won 2000 presidential "elections". Grin

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3808

Merit: 1219

Quote from: tee-rex on February 23, 2015, 06:56:53 AM

A small correction. After (or before) she tries to invade Iran, she will be assassinated by CIA like Kennedy... Provided she becomes the president in the first place, which I doubt. I'm always lolling when I hear this abbreviation, sounds like fetus in a pot.

It is almost 99.9% certain that she will be the Democrat candidate in 2016. And with the recent demographic changes, which have occurred in the past few decades, it is almost impossible for the GOP to win presidential elections anymore.

tee-rex

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 526

Quote from: bryant.coleman on February 23, 2015, 06:50:45 AM

Quote from: BADecker on February 23, 2015, 06:25:42 AM

One thing is for sure. If control of the military armaments that exist around the world, falls into the hands of insane people, with world populations as high as they are, we just might have the largest mass genocides the world has ever seen.

That will happen in 2016, when Hillary Clinton becomes the POTUS. First she will invade the DPRK. The next will be Iran. And the final target will be Russia, which will result in an all out nuclear warfare.

A small correction. After (or before) she tries to invade Iran, she will be assassinated by CIA like Kennedy... Provided she becomes the president in the first place, which I doubt. I'm always lolling when I hear this abbreviation, sounds like fetus in a pot.

Though I agree that hell has no fury like a woman scorned.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3808

Merit: 1219

Quote from: BADecker on February 23, 2015, 06:25:42 AM

One thing is for sure. If control of the military armaments that exist around the world, falls into the hands of insane people, with world populations as high as they are, we just might have the largest mass genocides the world has ever seen.

That will happen in 2016, when Hillary Clinton becomes the POTUS. First she will invade the DPRK. The next will be Iran. And the final target will be Russia, which will result in an all out nuclear warfare.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

One thing is for sure. If control of the military armaments that exist around the world, falls into the hands of insane people, with world populations as high as they are, we just might have the largest mass genocides the world has ever seen.

tee-rex

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 526

Quote from: mladen00 on February 23, 2015, 06:04:42 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I remember watching a video of the military strengths of different countries. Russia was way behind, since they used all the old tanks from the wars, and their Budget is 1/10th of US Military budget

1:10 Budget doesn't mean nothing
If 1 USA soldier earns 3-4 more then a russian,
and usa made 1 plane Fxx 10x more expensive than SUXX

I don't think that real ratio is bigger than 1:2

Besides that, we should never forget about 700+ U.S. military bases spread across each continent with more than 2,500,000 personnel serving there. These bases make economical sense only under the U.S. dollar world hegemony (in fact, they serve to support it). As soon as this hegemony ends, all these bases will kill the U.S. economy pretty fast (just like the military expenditures finally killed the economy of the USSR).

mladen00

legendary

Activity: 2124

Merit: 1013

K-ing®

Quote from: ?? on ??

I remember watching a video of the military strengths of different countries. Russia was way behind, since they used all the old tanks from the wars, and their Budget is 1/10th of US Military budget

1:10 Budget doesn't mean nothing
If 1 USA soldier earns 3-4 more then a russian,
and usa made 1 plane Fxx 10x more expensive than SUXX

I don't think that real ratio is bigger than 1:2

tee-rex

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 526

Quote from: Snipe85 on February 22, 2015, 06:03:42 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I remember watching a video of the military strengths of different countries. Russia was way behind, since they used all the old tanks from the wars, and their Budget is 1/10th of US Military budget

That's right most of their army consists of cold war projects later outfitted with new types of radars, night vision, countermeasures and so on. For example their main light vehicle BMP-1 came into production in the 60s and is still used as a platform for many different weapons and as a troop transport. Their main long range bomber Tupolev Tu-95 was made in the 50s. The only thing Russia has the most in the world is nuclear warheads, but most of them are old and kept in a rusty pre cold war bunkers.

First of all, Russia's main strategic bomber is supersonic Tupolev Tu-160 ("White Swan"), the fastest bomber out there, which was made in early 1980s (entering service in 1987). But this is not my point entirely. I'm always amused when people say about Tupolev Tu-95 as being old and decrepit... Here comes Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, America's super-modern strategic bomber from 1940s, which is still in service, lo and behold!

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3808

Merit: 1219

Quote from: Balthazar on February 23, 2015, 02:31:12 AM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on February 23, 2015, 02:21:58 AM

SS-18 Satan

It can't be intercepted but actually it's not superior anymore. RSM-56 is way better.

Bulava might be more advanced... but I am not sure whether it is reliable or not. There has been at least a dozen launch failures for this missile so far, with the latest failure occurring less than two years ago.

On the other hand, the SS-18 Satan gave USSR first strike advantage over the U.S.

Lethn

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1000

The only thing that I've learned about the state of readiness of the West and the East is that both sides are completely full of shit and that's what is preventing World War 3, yes, the U.S has advanced technology, but half the people there are too stupid to use it properly and the other half are aware of how dangerous it is and would never use it.

Balthazar

legendary

Activity: 3108

Merit: 1359

Quote from: bryant.coleman on February 23, 2015, 02:21:58 AM

SS-18 Satan

It can't be intercepted but actually it's not superior anymore. RSM-56 is way better.

bryant.coleman

legendary

Activity: 3808

Merit: 1219

Quote from: ?? on ??

I remember watching a video of the military strengths of different countries. Russia was way behind, since they used all the old tanks from the wars, and their Budget is 1/10th of US Military budget

Just because the United States is having a $600 billion military budget, it doesn't mean that their armed forces is superior. Same type of equipment costs a lot more to manufacture in the US, when compared to Russia. Also, in some fields, the US is way behind Russia. For example, Russia is having the most powerful ballistic missile in the world (SS-18 Satan) and the best air-defense system (S-400 Triumf).

bcoinbilly

newbie

Activity: 43

Merit: 0

This is why nuclear weapons, military, wars, and everything that can destroy people, land, countries, or even life itself - should all go away for good.

tss

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: deepestfear on February 22, 2015, 02:49:24 AM

Soviet Union vs Putin's Russia = Same wine, different bottle

the two bottles might even come from the same factory

Snipe85

sr. member

Activity: 756

Merit: 250

Infleum

Quote from: ?? on ??

I remember watching a video of the military strengths of different countries. Russia was way behind, since they used all the old tanks from the wars, and their Budget is 1/10th of US Military budget

That's right most of their army consists of cold war projects later outfitted with new types of radars, night vision, countermeasures and so on. For example their main light vehicle BMP-1 came into production in the 60s and is still used as a platform for many different weapons and as a troop transport. Their main long range bomber Tupolev Tu-95 was made in the 50s. The only thing Russia has the most in the world is nuclear warheads, but most of them are old and kept in a rusty pre cold war bunkers.

Oh, and let's not forget they have a whole 1 carrier! Italy and India have 2 and the US - 10 Cheesy

What is funny they had 2 but sold one to China Wink

BitMos

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 123

"PLEASE SCULPT YOUR SHIT BEFORE THROWING. Thank U"

Quote from: fritz on February 22, 2015, 01:42:05 PM

It was the same story in Vietnam. The US spent billions and could never win either!

most of you never watched (enough) 漫画, this one is perfect to teach you the basic concept of war :

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9d/DragonquestTheAdventureOfDai_vol1_Cover.jpg

Understand why your foes are angry and ready to use violence, evaluate with an open and honest mind the complaints (generally you will see that there is a problem, for ex gmo, systemic prostitution, immunity for sexual offenders and ctrl+p for my case (in short ofc)), solve the issue$, become the best friend of your old foe that will do the Do with you.

Of course it's beyond the grasp of the "man behind the curtail" because he is a sociopath thinking only about him, him, and him. always. Which means that once the combat is engaged there is no others choice than to break him, just before death, so that he can still have a chance, and if his "soul" is gone, finishing IT as a sign of mercy.

fritz

newbie

Activity: 45

Merit: 0

It was the same story in Vietnam. The US spent billions and could never win either!

tee-rex

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 526

Quote from: ahmedjadoon on February 22, 2015, 11:29:06 AM

Quote from: sickhouse on February 22, 2015, 10:30:35 AM

Quote from: ahmedjadoon on February 22, 2015, 09:47:49 AM

A few thousand Taliban are enough to overcome their "unmatchable" military.

Right, according to SIPRI, Russia spent nearly $72 billion on arms in 2011- considering the current situation that number is propably way way higher. Haters gonna hate...

I repeat Russia will never be able to win against Taliban(backed by US).

Just a few noticeable figures tightly connected with Taliban and Al-Qaida, who fought against Russia in the North Caucasus. All dead by now.

Ibn al-Khattab
Spent the period between 1989 and 1994 in Afghanistan, where he had met Osama Bin Laden. Khattab underwent training in Afghanistan and had close connections with Al-Qaida. Killed by the Russian FSB in March 2002.

Abu al-Walid
Participated in jihad in Afghanistan. Spent two years training at the Maktab al-Khidamat, an organization created by Abdullah Azzam and Osama bin Laden. Killed by members of Sulim Yamadaev’s Special Battalion "Vostok" in Chechnya in April 2004

Abu Hafs al-Urduni
Participated in the Afghan-Soviet war and the Tajik civil war along with Khattab and al-Walid. Killed in a gunfight with Russian special forces in Khasav-Yurt, Dagestan, in November 2006.

Abu Omar al-Kuwaiti
Al-Qaeda agent operating first in Afghanistan and later in Chechnya. Killed in February 2005 by Russian special forces after having been surrounded in his safehouse in Ingushetia.

Abu Omar al-Saif
Saudi Islamist and fighter operating first in Afghanistan (1986–1988) and later in the North Caucasus. Killed by Russian Federal forces in Dagestan in December 2005.

Snipe85

sr. member

Activity: 756

Merit: 250

Infleum

The great Russian military power. I bet they have enough rusty junk to match the rest of the world.

http://defensetech.org/2012/06/05/tanks-as-far-as-the-eye-can-see/

Topic: Putin says Russia's military strength unmatchable - page 4. (Read 4804 times)