Russia, Iran, Allies of Syria Warn US Against Further Attacks - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Maegord;52081696]Watching Russia desperately try to prove that it's just as mighty and formidable as it was during the days of the Soviet Union is always a bit entertaining, and simultaneously depressing. Russia really just seems like the former football star at his local high school, whose life peaked there and has never quite gotten over their former glory, and spends their time reminiscing at the bar about who great they once were.[/QUOTE] Uhhhhh, are you blind? Russia could destroy us. The US isn't as powerful as it used to be.

[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;52083076]Uhhhhh, are you blind? Russia could destroy us. The US isn't as powerful as it used to be.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/0053_defense-comparison-full.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;52083076]Uhhhhh, are you blind? Russia could destroy us. The US isn't as powerful as it used to be.[/QUOTE] Russia certainly could destroy the US. But they would be destroyed as well. There isn't a win-lose war between the US and Russia. Either there is no war, or they are both so devastated that the entire globe will be shaken to its core.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52083156]Russia certainly could destroy the US. But they would be destroyed as well. There isn't a win-lose war between the US and Russia. Either there is no war, or they are both so devastated that the entire globe will be shaken to its core.[/QUOTE] If by 'entire globe shaken to its core' you mean a near total extinction of all life on earth then yeah. In the hypothetical scenario that only the us and russia exchange nuclear weapons, and not a single missile lands outside their respective borders, the resulting fallout would simply extinguish the rest of us.

[QUOTE=The Aussie;52083192]If by 'entire globe shaken to its core' you mean a near total extinction of all life on earth then yeah. In the hypothetical scenario that only the us and russia exchange nuclear weapons, and not a single missile lands outside their respective borders, the resulting fallout would simply extinguish the rest of us.[/QUOTE] Even a solely conventional war would destroy the world's economy beyond repair for several generations.

[QUOTE=Judas;52083120][img]http://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/0053_defense-comparison-full.gif[/img][/QUOTE] To be honest, how much of that is just over-inflated prices due to the military-industrial complex?

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52083199]To be honest, how much of that is just over-inflated prices due to the military-industrial complex?[/QUOTE] Even if it's 50% we still are spending more than any one of the next top ten.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52083199]To be honest, how much of that is just over-inflated prices due to the military-industrial complex?[/QUOTE] Lets take into account that those dollarydoos can account for the logistics base of the US Armed forces, which no shit is probably the most efficient and unmatched and the sheer ability to transport or move materials,men,etc. The logistical capabilities of the the Navy,Army, and Air Force are so vast and substantial that without it, NATO wouldn't have no where near the capabilities it does. Now this is dependent. We haven't faced truly and organized force since the early 1990s which was Saddam, most recent conflicts have been mostly against militant forces and areas like Iraq and Afghanistan. Same can be said for Russia since Chechnya and Ukraine(Granted the Ukrainian Military isn't the really the best dog in the race.) IE having an absurdly big numerical and technological edge against dirt farmers and pissed off country men really makes your prowess look like hot shit. Now this my opinion, comparatively if the US engaged in a conventional conflict with Russia, and this best case scenario with nukes some how NOT being in play I can see the US and Allies coming on top. AFAIK Many of the Balkan States do not trust or like Russia,even to the point of request US bases to deter Russian advances. That being said there's fairly large web of allies that the US has, provide services for and in-turn we do the same. Russia more or less is most likely going to be fighting this fight alone with maybe the exception of North Korea or Iran offering assistance to Russia. China isn't going to risk it because it's China they're reliant on us and we're reliant on them. It would essentially be three countries, two of which military lacks severely in tech and experience(mainly North Korea) against US + Majority of Western European Nations + Several Balkan States and several SEA Countries. Russia probably has allies else where, but they don't come close to the US' web. If anything the entire deterrent of Russia outright nuking the planet along with the US is more than enough to prevent an outright conflict, else wise we might have seen it years ago.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;52082074]Those are leftovers from a time when Russia was a global superpower with an immense level of power projection. Their economy (and influence) practically crumbled overnight and are unlikely to regain their former relative strength ever again, the conditions that lead them to becoming a superpower simply cannot be recreated in the modern era. An example of why they are incredibly weak is the fact that they are unable to totally annex Ukraine. Not because Russia cannot do it militarily, because they can, it's because Russia is not self sufficient or influential enough to avoid the inevitable economic collapse and Balkanization that would follow a pariah status from half of the global community. There was a time when their ideology could be found on four continents, but these days they have very limited global influence. Yes they are weak.[/QUOTE] You also have to remember that, just prior to becoming a super power, they were a nation of farming peasants. Who then went on to conquer one of the most powerful military forces in the region, despite being pushed all the way back to their capital. (Nazi Germany) [editline]10th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52083207]Even if it's 50% we still are spending more than any one of the next top ten.[/QUOTE] Expenditure does not necessarily equate to quality, though.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52083416]Expenditure does not necessarily equate to quality, though.[/QUOTE] Last I checked, the US Military's equipment quality was top-tier

[QUOTE=Mallow234;52083564]Last I checked, the US Military's equipment quality was top-tier[/QUOTE] Is it worth the amount they spend on it? Considering a t90 is nearly half the price of a abrams

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52083596]Is it worth the amount they spend on it? Considering a t90 is nearly half the price of a abrams[/QUOTE] A t90 is literally a modernized t72, it's nothing special.

[QUOTE=Ghost656;52083599]A t90 is literally a modernized t72, it's nothing special.[/QUOTE] It doesn't have to be special, so long as it works.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52083617]It doesn't have to be special, so long as it works.[/QUOTE] It's not special, it might work when invading smaller countries but it's laughable if someone thinks the Russian military is on-par with the American one. Hell, most of the active Russian tanks are t-72s.

[QUOTE=Ghost656;52083599]A t90 is literally a modernized t72, it's nothing special.[/QUOTE] good armour, long range anti tank missile capability, low profile, modern electronics + missile jammers + possibility for active defence in near future Nothing to write home about but its a good tank and whats more its a good value tank. Is the abrams 2x cost worth it? [editline]10th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Ghost656;52083635]It's not special, it might work when invading smaller countries but it's laughable if someone thinks the Russian military is on-par with the American one. Hell, most of the active Russian tanks are t-72s.[/QUOTE] not saying russian military is on parr, I don't think they are. But the T90 is a better value tank than Abrams. Abrams is a better tank but its not twice as a good, furthermore its larger profile makes it easier to hit and the bigger crew make it more expensive to run. Purely on terms of value for money I don't think the US get a good deal.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52083644]good armour, long range anti tank missile capability, low profile, modern electronics + missile jammers + possibility for active defence in near future Nothing to write home about but its a good tank and whats more its a good value tank. Is the abrams 2x cost worth it? [editline]10th April 2017[/editline] not saying russian military is on parr, I don't think they are. But the T90 is a better value tank than Abrams. Abrams is a better tank but its not twice as a good, furthermore its larger profile makes it easier to hit and the bigger crew make it more expensive to run. Purely on terms of value for money I don't think the US get a good deal.[/QUOTE] I think before we go into the pros and cons we should make clear which versions of the t72 and abrams we're comparing, the armor often changes. The t-72 definitely has a smaller silhouette and the long range missiles (when they're actually used atleast). But one thing that definitely the Abrams does better is the electronics, which is perhaps why it's more expensive.

[QUOTE=Ghost656;52083669]I think before we go into the pros and cons we should make clear which versions of the t72 and abrams we're comparing, the armor often changes. The t-72 definitely has a smaller silhouette and the long range missiles (when they're actually used atleast) But one thing that definitely the Abrams does better is the electronics.[/QUOTE] The current Abrams actually has better armor than the T-72 by having depleted uranium as part of the composite armor. Problem is that the M1 uses a jet engine, which sucks fuel and requires the air filters to get cleaned every few hours. edit the T-72 is still steel armor with ERA blocks on it, but it does have a lower sillouette, and can fire ATGMs from the gun.

Why does everyone think every single diplomatic incident will bring forth the destruction of the Human race. Like Clinton suggested a no-fly zone and the reaction was "OH MY GOD WELCOME TO WW3" as if nobody ever negotiates or as if Russia is willing to bring forth the death of the world for an unstable Middle Eastern nation. Nobody is starting WW3 because the US dropped missiles in Syria. Also judging a countries military strength by the number of warheads they own is idiotic since you could take half of any of the major player's arsenal and they could still wipe out every other nation on Earth.

that moment when another world war literally can't make your situation any worse, at least I'm glad someone wants to take the challenge of standing against the US.

[QUOTE=Maegord;52081696]Watching Russia desperately try to prove that it's just as mighty and formidable as it was during the days of the Soviet Union is always a bit entertaining, and simultaneously depressing. Russia really just seems like the former football star at his local high school, whose life peaked there and has never quite gotten over their former glory, and spends their time reminiscing at the bar about who great they once were.[/QUOTE] It's quite sad that people ALWAYS underestimate Russia, and the topping on the cake is from mostly US-based users. [editline]10th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Daniel Smith;52082074] An example of why they are incredibly weak is the fact that they [b]are unable to totally annex Ukraine.[/b][/QUOTE] What the fuck are you smoking

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52083596]Is it worth the amount they spend on it? Considering a t90 is nearly half the price of a abrams[/QUOTE] If it saves lives in combat then overwhelmingly yes. But what we ought to do is retract ourselves from when we need to enter combat so we can in turn lower our expenditures.

[QUOTE=JeSuisIkea;52083820]Why does everyone think every single diplomatic incident will bring forth the destruction of the Human race. Like Clinton suggested a no-fly zone and the reaction was "OH MY GOD WELCOME TO WW3" as if nobody ever negotiates or as if Russia is willing to bring forth the death of the world for an unstable Middle Eastern nation. Nobody is starting WW3 because the US dropped missiles in Syria. Also judging a countries military strength by the number of warheads they own is idiotic since you could take half of any of the major player's arsenal and they could still wipe out every other nation on Earth.[/QUOTE] Because Russia has been habitually hinting for the last ten years at WW3 when things don't go their way so that has kind of crept into public consciousness in the west. It's working quite nicely, what with the "Hillary no-flight WW3" meme being pretty widespread during last year.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;52082074]An example of why they are incredibly weak is the fact that they are unable to totally annex Ukraine.[/QUOTE] I think you're forgetting the fact Russia never planned to annex Ukraine, only Crimea. Which they succeeded in with no troubles whatsoever and spawned several rebel groups still engaging in military action against Ukraine's government. So, yeah. Russia is still pretty powerful and influential to say the least.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;52082927]Did you miss the second half of the description stating that it is investing heavily into modernizing its warheads and delivery systems? Russia doesn't have a lot going for it currently, it no longer has immense power projection like it had in the 20th century, and [I]that is exactly why you should be cautious[/I]. Because that means that rather than investing in civilian sectors, [url=https://sputniknews.com/russia/201608141044256113-russia-army-rearmament/]it is almost entirely focused on its military sectors[/url], and will go to great lengths to modernize them and maintain them. It also means that it is willing to sacrifice a lot more, willing to take drastic measures to get their way, and often times doesn't make empty handed threats. It is basically a government that is, in more ways than one, backed into a corner - faced between the choice to back down and letting the "West" win once again, or maintaining their agenda of undermining any Western decisions and aggressively defending their interests in the global arena. Russia isn't North Korea. Its soldiers aren't starving and they're not using equipment from the 50's. It's important to remember that Russia is still, currently, the only single nation that is capable to stand up to the US or NATO. (before any armchair generals spring up and say otherwise, capable as in - can theoretically inflict equal or greater amounts of damage in case of an all out attack).[/QUOTE] They cannot maintain a strong military sector if they have a weak civilian one. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;52083416]You also have to remember that, just prior to becoming a super power, they were a nation of farming peasants. Who then went on to conquer one of the most powerful military forces in the region, despite being pushed all the way back to their capital. (Nazi Germany)[/QUOTE] That's why I said the conditions that lead to them becoming a superpower cannot be recreated. [QUOTE=nulls;52084807]I think you're forgetting the fact Russia never planned to annex Ukraine, only Crimea. Which they succeeded in with no troubles whatsoever and spawned several rebel groups still engaging in military action against Ukraine's government. So, yeah. Russia is still pretty powerful and influential to say the least.[/QUOTE] They didn't plan on doing so because they couldn't. [editline]10th April 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=CruelAddict;52084297]What the fuck are you smoking[/QUOTE] What the fuck was the sentence after that?

[QUOTE=Judas;52082041]and why exactly would russia nuke us, knowing we would also nuke them into radioactive dust?[/QUOTE] because states and their rulers aren't rational actors and frequently make decisions that go against their own interests there have been plenty of instances of princes who destroyed the kingdoms they ruled over for some petty reason - trump and putin would be merely the latest in a long line of fools

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;52084984] They didn't plan on doing so because they couldn't. [/QUOTE] What the fuck? No, lmao. Do you not know anything about the conflict in Ukraine?

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;52084984]They didn't plan on doing so because they couldn't.[/QUOTE] By your logic USA is also weak, because it didn't annex Canada and Mexico already. It's not a matter of power, there is simply [U]no interest[/U] in doing so. Crimea was annexed by Russia because over 60% of population there is Russian and Russian people already living there wanted it and they rebelled. Other parts of the Ukraine that still rebel also have majority Russian population. If the country wasn't in such political and economic mess for years, those now rebelling would probably be busy with their daily lives and none of this would have happened.

Is this basically what the consensus amongst Democrat voters is now? [IMG]https://i.imgflip.com/1n0f66.jpg[/IMG] Shame those kinetic kill missiles were not developed further...or were they? [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("image macro, alt of mwesten" - Orkel))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=SweeChile;52085255]Is this basically what the consensus amongst Democrat voters is now? *lol memes* Shame those kinetic kill missiles were not developed further...or were they? [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("image macro, alt of mwesten" - Orkel))[/highlight][/QUOTE] I don't think Trump's a puppet, merely a pawn. If Putin wants to undermine the influence of the US, Trump is just the person to do it. Bonus if Trump's appointees get friendly with the notion of lifting Russian sanctions.

[QUOTE=SweeChile;52085255]Is this basically what the consensus amongst Democrat voters is now? [IMG]https://i.imgflip.com/1n0f66.jpg[/IMG] Shame those kinetic kill missiles were not developed further...or were they? [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("image macro, alt of mwesten" - Orkel))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Even the best trained dogs still shit on the rug sometimes.