Russia v Georgia

Started by BackFire18 pages

Almost. They've only had 5 casualties today.

And 6 more dealing with the maple syrup avalanche.

Originally posted by BackFire
Almost. They've only had 5 casualties today.

And 6 more dealing with the maple syrup avalanche.

Nipple syrup? droolio

I think its amazing how Nato has a go at Russia for attacking Georgia, but did nothing about the USA invading a Sovereign country with no legal reason whatsoever, apart from lies about WMD.

Russia still has a lot of Nukes, and by putting anti ballistic missile battery's in Poland is putting Russia in a corner. Not that it would do much good seeing as they have Submarines and other delivery methods.

But neverthless I get the feeling Russia is becomming a target for some reason.

Originally posted by KidRock
The mighty Russian military is back! They beat a country with a population the size of Wisconsin! Watch out USA!

Their might never went away, they had more weapons than the U.S. during the (recognized) cold war and they (presumably) have more weapons than the U.S. now, even with the massive sell offs that occured after the C.C.C.P. broke apart in '91. Russia isn't some 2nd class punk.

Well, considering almost all of the equipment is outdated, the US shouldn't be too scared. Russia just started to get advanced night vision to their troops and just started designs on unmanned droids, while we're on our fourth generation.

And Russia's becoming a target because enough people still live in the Cold War. Also, Putin never helped the perception of Russia just being an imperialistic war monger.

Originally posted by Robtard
Their might never went away, they had more weapons than the U.S. during the (recognized) cold war and they (presumably) have more weapons than the U.S. now, even with the massive sell offs that occured after the C.C.C.P. broke apart in '91. Russia isn't some 2nd class punk.
My understanding was that America's grounding for standing against Russia on this issue has less to do with weapons and is more about economic persuasion. As in...Georgia isn't worth as much to Russia as the United States.

That's good and all; I was referring to Kidrock's sarcasm about Russia being weak in military, They're not a weak nation in the slightest.

Russia, deeming that they are behind the Americans in military technology, have stated that, should they come under fire from precision military weapons, they would have no option but to respond with tactical nuclear weapons. This is something that they do not keep secret, which they practice (including in practice scenarios similar to what is happening in Georgia) and is in line with the movement of missile launchers into Georgia (which have less firepower than air-strikes unless armed with nuclear weapons). It makes sense, given the advantage of american military technology.

America has a lot to fear from Russian weapons

I posted an excerpt from a retired military colonial about this pages back.

EDIT:

Originally posted by KidRock
Has the Canadian military finally got the upper hand on that pesky Moose invasion?

no, but we are kicking the Taliban's ass. Too bad your military is in the wrong place.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's good and all; I was referring to Kidrock's sarcasm about Russia being weak in military, They're not a weak nation in the slightest.

I understand that, I was just saying the power is not that great.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I understand that, I was just saying the power is not that great.

being arguably the second strongest power in the world with more than enough firepower to many times over reduce the world to a cinder box is not a lot of power?

I'd think the only individual NATO country that could stand against Russia would be America... Leaving possibly China or Japan to be stronger...

China's forces lack real organization and mobility... And I know next to nothing about the Japanese, other than to say I don't think they sit at the "superpower" table...

Originally posted by Robtard
That's good and all; I was referring to Kidrock's sarcasm about Russia being weak in military, They're not a weak nation in the slightest.

Exactl right. And undermining or ignoring this is what lands certain arrogant countries in trouble.

Even the dumbest of international analysists would have predicted violent Russian response after Georgia's reckless assult on South Ossetia.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I understand that, I was just saying the power is not that great.

We could argue that Jordan is better than Bryant or vice-versa, but that fact remains that they're both great. See?

I don't watch basketball.

That said, after Russia pull out of Georgia, that'll leave the missile system to debate over. It obviously won't come to anyone getting nuked, the very fact that everyone has nukes will see to that.

Haven't Poland invited Russia to come and see that they aren't aiming missiles at them?

-AC

Originally posted by inimalist
being arguably the second strongest power in the world with more than enough firepower to many times over reduce the world to a cinder box is not a lot of power?

I'd think the only individual NATO country that could stand against Russia would be America... Leaving possibly China or Japan to be stronger...

China's forces lack real organization and mobility... And I know next to nothing about the Japanese, other than to say I don't think they sit at the "superpower" table...


Yes, with nuclear weapons, Russia would destroy any country. But the problem with Russia's military is the conventional arm. France, England, even Germany could go toe to toe with Russia's conventional army because of it's outdated tech and lack of any real morale.

Rob, it's more of a comparison between Bird and Magic. One was absolutely the better shooter, but the other one was a better all around player and can hurt you beyond that shooting.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Yes, with nuclear weapons, Russia would destroy any country. But the problem with Russia's military is the conventional arm. France, England, even Germany could go toe to toe with Russia's conventional army because of it's outdated tech and lack of any real morale.
That's probably what Napoleon and Hitler said, too.

They didn't lose because of Russia's army. They lose because of sheer stupidity when it came to logistics.

I'm not saying they couldn't have beaten Russia. I'm saying overconfidence can handicap you as effectively as a low quality in your conventional military.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Yes, with nuclear weapons, Russia would destroy any country. But the problem with Russia's military is the conventional arm. France, England, even Germany could go toe to toe with Russia's conventional army because of it's outdated tech and lack of any real morale.

Russia's stated military policy is to use nuclear weapons against nations with greater military technology

even if one believe your claim about France, England and Germany, there is no reason to remove nuclear arms from the equation, which GREATLY tip the favor for Russia

also, France, the who has the largest army of the 3 you mentioned (and of any NATO country excluding USA, and of EU nations excluding Turkey) has roughly a quarter the size of the Russians (active troops). Looking at total troops, it jumps to almost 1/5.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops

plus, France is not America. America's military policy is to stay at least a generation ahead of all nations, meaning that France's technology is probably not that much better than the Russians.

Wiki lays out the basics of each wing of both the French and Russian militaries. Just having a quick look, France would be ****ED

Isn't it France's policy to always be ****ed?

Originally posted by Robtard
Isn't it France's policy to always be ****ed?

😆

they do have as many Air craft carries as Russia (1). That was a surprise 🙂