Russia to boost Black Sea Fleet with 80 new warships and spare naval base
47 replies, posted
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;46063597]SH In 2150
"95% turnout on the moon federalisation referendum"
"Allience of Earth nations annexed moon claiming it was ethnically theirs"
"Xin d' Jun of Mars republic of mars denounced the president of Earth. It's evident that humans violate interplanet law"[/QUOTE]
SSDD
[QUOTE=antianan;46063366]This could be cool. Really doubt about this part about ammo tho.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=karimatrix;46063395]A global military alliance can't be achieved for same reason sadly, if Russia joined NATO it would only cripple country in migration to different logistic and equipment standart (You can actually check out Ukraine's plans for that - interesting topic to dig since it shows how much of compromise has to be considered), since Russian army is not the one that can achieve such vast change due to being, you know, quite massive.[/QUOTE]All you'd need to do is issue armorer conversion kits for your infantry and crew-served weapons, and as for the tank guns they'd have to be factory rebarreled to accept 120mm bore ammunition rather than 125mm. Honestly most of it would be a "whatever, just fucking leave it alone until we replace it" type of deal. Unless it's going to cause some major problem in resupply efforts there isn't any real reason to bother with it.
All in all it's not even remotely tough to convert everything, but the problem with that is the arms manufacturers won't get juicy contracts for [i]new[/i] weapon systems. Every time some country joins NATO and it's using your system there's suddenly a bunch of representatives from all the major arms companies showing up to pitch products.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;46063558]If the brits refuse to standardise their tank ammo with the rest of the world theres no way the Russians would.[/QUOTE]Actually it was the Germans who refused to use the British rifled guns, (I'm going from memory, this is probably how it went down) and it was only later did French and American tanks receive 120mm guns. Early Abrams had the exact same gun as your tanks, but our love for the APFSDS round and our total lack of fucks given for HESH rounds led to the adoption of a 120mm smoothbore gun.
Again, if it actually causes problems it would have to be changed, but in reality the sheer number of Russian guns in service and large stockpiles of ammunition would mean Russian tanks would be using Russian ammo.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;46063733]
All you'd need to do is issue armorer conversion kits for your infantry and crew-served weapons, and as for the tank guns they'd have to be factory rebarreled to accept 120mm bore ammunition rather than 125mm. Honestly most of it would be a "whatever, just fucking leave it alone until we replace it" type of deal. Unless it's going to cause some major problem in resupply efforts there isn't any real reason to bother with it.
All in all it's not even remotely tough to convert everything, but the problem with that is the arms manufacturers won't get juicy contracts for [i]new[/i] weapon systems. Every time some country joins NATO and it's using your system there's suddenly a bunch of representatives from all the major arms companies showing up to pitch products.[/QUOTE]
It's not that easy. We have a huge military industry, so it would cost a lot to change all these technological processes. Not to mention that these changes would cause lots of small troubles. For example, our tanks can fire rockets from their barres, so we would either need to forget about this ability or develop new rounds. And what about tons of ammo stockpiles?
It's easy to implement new military standards for some small countries with compact armies, but for us it would mean a pure nightmare.
[QUOTE=antianan;46063888]It's not that easy. We have a huge military industry, so it would cost a lot to change all these technological processes. Not to mention that these changes would cause lots of small troubles. For example, our tanks can fire rockets from their barres, so we would either need to forget about this ability or develop new rounds. And what about tons of ammo stockpiles?
It's easy to implement new military standards for some small countries with compact armies, but for us it would mean a pure nightmare.[/QUOTE]
Sell it to north korea so NATO can still be united vs a common enemy
[QUOTE=GunFox;46062593]Except there was no threat. Russia (putin and ultranationalists really) has now created a threat by being an asshole. Before NATO was largely just appreciating new possibilities for trade and member nations.NATO nations have close political ties.
It wasn't missiles in Turkey, it was just another ally to be had.
At the end of the day if we want to destroy Russia, it will happen and the proximity of NATO troops to their border will be irrelevant. ICBM's care little about geography.[/QUOTE]
The NATO missile defense system isn't a threat? Constantly upgrading the nuclear deterrent isn't a threat? The US Prompt Global Strike plan isn't a threat?
You're right, it wasn't missiles in Turkey, it was missiles in Ukraine they were worried about.
[QUOTE=just-a-boy;46062721]Why should it matter what Russia wants if Ukraine itself expressed the desire to strengthen ties with Europe?[/QUOTE]
Why should it have mattered that Cuba, a small island far away from Russia, wanted to strengthen ties with the Soviets? If they want to, that's their own prerogative, right? Even if the Soviet Union was clearly influencing them?
Do you think that some Russians thought NATO was purposely influencing Ukraine as well? And would constantly expand east and eventually outwardly threaten Russia?
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;46063384]I honestly absolutely despise the notion of buffer states and areas of influence, that smaller countries have to bend over backwards for their larger neighbours. It's not like e.g. us Finns can grab a saw and physically separate us from Russia like Bugs Bunny can; and I imagine Mexico has similar misgivings about the US at times.[/QUOTE]
It's one of the major political issues right now:
[quote]"The emergence of independent states within the former Soviet space is a reality. The ability of these states to determine their own future is a litmus test for the new Europe. Do we have to choose between good relations with Russia and further enlargement? My answer is no - we will not choose, will not sacrifice one for the other. It would bring new dividing lines." - [URL="http://www.unian.info/society/163734-dont-turn-deaf-ear-to-ukraine-nato-bid-viktor-yushchenko-begs-allies.html"]NATO Secretary General[/URL][/quote]
[QUOTE=Rubs10;46066117]The NATO missile defense system isn't a threat? Constantly upgrading the nuclear deterrent isn't a threat? The US Prompt Global Strike plan isn't a threat?
You're right, it wasn't missiles in Turkey, it was missiles in Ukraine they were worried about.
Why should it have mattered that Cuba, a small island far away from Russia, wanted to strengthen ties with the Soviets? If they want to, that's their own prerogative, right? Even if the Soviet Union was clearly influencing them?
Do you think that some Russians thought NATO was purposely influencing Ukraine as well? And would constantly expand east and eventually outwardly threaten Russia?[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't consider missile shields and nuclear deterrents threats. Nobody wants to be incinerated in nuclear fire, so the better we can defend against them, the better for everyone's collective nerves. After all, Russia isn't the only body that could cause trouble with destructive ballistic weaponry. Why should people's unwillingness to die threaten Russia? Now, offensive-minded programs and weapons platform demonstrations are indeed threatening, and I absolutely do not support these, but since Russia and NATO keep leapfrogging eachother, it presents a vicious cycle. Ask yourself this: if NATO did disarm in its entirety our nuclear arsenal, would Russia perceive it as:
A) A sign of goodwill and, for the first time, tangible steps toward global peace.
Or
B) A sign of weakness and, for the first time, a tangible advantage in power projection, enticing it to invade, whether outright or subterfuge - doesn't matter, they invade.
I don't know this. Nobody does. I'd like to hope it's the former. I'm all for peace and burying those rusty hatchets, believe me, but I must confess it's difficult being the fulcrum of change when there are millions of people fanatically stuck in the past.
And no, influenced or not, the Cuban Missile Crisis should not have happened. If Cuba was looking to tie itself with the USSR, in essence it should've been completely free to do so, but politics and spheres of influence. Which brings us to my original point. As a citizen of a small nation, situated smack dab in the middle of the East and the West, historically serving as an unwilling buffer nation and battleground for whoever ever decided to come knocking with a crusade, occupying for centuries at a time, we're all quite paranoid of both sides. None of us here want to be in anyone's sphere of anything other than trade and cooperation. I'm aware the West considers us pawns, and Russia considers us subordinate, if not "scum", but since Russia has been pushing mine and the countries of millions of other East-Europeans around for almost 75 years now, I wouldn't call it NATO manipulating us as much as us choosing the lesser of two evils. A majority of us Middle-Earthers have forgotten and forgiven the past, but the russophobia that does linger is not without justification. The West sold us off as bargaining chips and Russia proceeded to shit on our existence for half a century. Mind you, recent developments are in equal measures breeding complacency regarding safety due to NATO as well as feeding doubts whether NATO would even bother rushing to our aid at all, deeming it viable to bargain us off again in hopes of cultivating some sort of appeasement policy.
Instead of approaching the issue from the viewpoints of the two superpowers as they juggle with the lives of millions, try starting from the middle and looking out at both sides. Try perspective from those who are actually paying with their lives for whatever the dysfunctional US/RU relationship comes up with.
[QUOTE=just-a-boy;46066905]I wouldn't consider missile shields and nuclear deterrents threats. Nobody wants to be incinerated in nuclear fire, so the better we can defend against them, the better for everyone's collective nerves. After all, Russia isn't the only body that could cause trouble with destructive ballistic weaponry. Why should people's unwillingness to die threaten Russia? Now, offensive-minded programs and weapons platform demonstrations are indeed threatening, and I absolutely do not support these, but since Russia and NATO keep leapfrogging eachother, it presents a vicious cycle. Ask yourself this: if NATO did disarm in its entirety our nuclear arsenal, would Russia perceive it as:
A) A sign of goodwill and, for the first time, tangible steps toward global peace.
Or
B) A sign of weakness and, for the first time, a tangible advantage in power projection, enticing it to invade, whether outright or subterfuge - doesn't matter, they invade.
I don't know this. Nobody does. I'd like to hope it's the former. I'm all for peace and burying those rusty hatchets, believe me, but I must confess it's difficult being the fulcrum of change when there are millions of people fanatically stuck in the past.
And no, influenced or not, the Cuban Missile Crisis should not have happened. If Cuba was looking to tie itself with the USSR, in essence it should've been completely free to do so, but politics and spheres of influence. Which brings us to my original point. As a citizen of a small nation, situated smack dab in the middle of the East and the West, historically serving as an unwilling buffer nation and battleground for whoever ever decided to come knocking with a crusade, occupying for centuries at a time, we're all quite paranoid of both sides. None of us here want to be in anyone's sphere of anything other than trade and cooperation. I'm aware the West considers us pawns, and Russia considers us subordinate, if not "scum", but since Russia has been pushing mine and the countries of millions of other East-Europeans around for almost 75 years now, I wouldn't call it NATO manipulating us as much as us choosing the lesser of two evils. A majority of us Middle-Earthers have forgotten and forgiven the past, but the russophobia that does linger is not without justification. The West sold us off as bargaining chips and Russia proceeded to shit on our existence for half a century. Mind you, recent developments are in equal measures breeding complacency regarding safety due to NATO as well as feeding doubts whether NATO would even bother rushing to our aid at all, deeming it viable to bargain us off again in hopes of cultivating some sort of appeasement policy.
Instead of approaching the issue from the viewpoints of the two superpowers as they juggle with the lives of millions, try starting from the middle and looking out at both sides. Try perspective from those who are actually paying with their lives for whatever the dysfunctional US/RU relationship comes up with.[/QUOTE]
Well I actually recall Medvedev saying that this would happen 5 years ago.
[QUOTE=just-a-boy;46066905]
Instead of approaching the issue from the viewpoints of the two superpowers as they juggle with the lives of millions, try starting from the middle and looking out at both sides. Try perspective from those who are actually paying with their lives for whatever the dysfunctional US/RU relationship comes up with.[/QUOTE]
To aproach issue from said viewpoint you'd have to develop a way for "middle" countries to thrive and survive completely independant or rise up to a larger role in politics where instead of being a buffer between powers it would become third one, balancing out arguments between neiborhoods only in a solidary neutral way and seek no way to enrich itself on conflict of before mentioned powers.
Basically you'd have whole world going switzerland, and even then it would not work, since switz might go fritz.
[img]http://puu.sh/bMlYH/5ab9534294.gif[/img]
your move russia
[QUOTE=just-a-boy;46066905]-snip-[/QUOTE]
I think you're missing an implication here.
A missile shield, if it works, would stop one side from being able to stop them using nukes. This makes the side who employs the shield immune to nukes and therefore capable of making threats/convential or nuclear actions without the fear of reprisals. It breaks the MAD stale mate. The only thing which stopped the cold war turning into millions dying once more was that both sides had nukes at each others throats. The US stopping Russia from having that nuclear defense while still being passive aggressive is essentially removing Russia's only way to defend itself vs threats from the US.
Its not a defensive move its an offensive one.
That is why when NATO did it Russia accused them of trying to start a war or some shit.
I won't get into the cuban missile crisis since I don't really know enough about it to argue properly.
What I will say though is it is important to have a rival to nato/US. Without a rival, someone to tell it no and to be able to enforce restraints on a super power that super power can and will abuse its power.
Like Israel in the middle east, nobody can really oppose it so it does silly shit. Like the US now they could invade nearly any country on earth and still have enough support to dissuade anybody who disagrees from opposing them. Russia might be corrupt and expansionist but it is better to have 2 corrupt expansionist states stopping each other from making any move than 1 corrupt expansionist state doing whatever it likes. Russia stopped the US from taking over syria and installing a US friendly government and the US doesn't like that. Had the US been unopposed Syria would be flooded with US troops being suicide bombed, lots of dead government forces and lots more dead civilians. + the US cant wait to get started on Iran
Just as we currently need competing business to ensure we get a fair deal and cheap goods we currently need competing super powers to ensure the rest of the world doesn't get trodden all over.
key word is currently.
+ 1 final final thing. I'm from the UK. If there was a nuclear war I would probably be dead in the first few minutes of it. A missile shield would stop that from happening, I am still opposed to a missile shield.
[QUOTE=antianan;46063888]It's not that easy. We have a huge military industry, so it would cost a lot to change all these technological processes. Not to mention that these changes would cause lots of small troubles. For example, our tanks can fire rockets from their barres, so we would either need to forget about this ability or develop new rounds. And what about tons of ammo stockpiles?
It's easy to implement new military standards for some small countries with compact armies, but for us it would mean a pure nightmare.[/QUOTE]Dude, your tanks probably wouldn't even be touched. Maybe an upgrade or two on the optics and fire control systems so it works with other NATO stuff, probably an armor upgrade. There would probably be these old Russian guys who would fall to their knees and weep, having finally seen that Western armor they had been chasing since the 80's on Russian vehicles.
As for your military industry, lol, anything that would need to be changed would be pretty easy to work out. Most of it would be die and tooling changes, and maybe a few pieces of manufacturing equipment would have to be reworked or replaced but I highly doubt that. Everything but large caliber weapons would be facing some sort of STANAG conversion, so everything up to 30mm cannons would be considered. This would take weeks of figuring out, and there would be experts from just about every NATO country involved to help the Russian military fit. (this includes potentially adopting Russian equipment) This might seem counter-intuitive, but those huge ammo stockpiles you have would be relatively useless in the long run as troops train. Our military uses [i]billions[/i] of rounds of ammo every year in training, as does yours, and supplying combat formations burning through ammo would be easier if the ammo could come from any stockpile. Large munitions would be easier to resupply, as their rate of usage would be far less and combat rounds are very different than training rounds. Plus your military could be scaled back drastically, as your chief rival would be a military ally with an obligation to rush to your aid should you be attacked. I can imagine this would piss China off, (Russia and NATO rivalry serves Chinese interests, they like it) so maybe not scale back too much.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;46067534]Dude, your tanks probably wouldn't even be touched. Maybe an upgrade or two on the optics and fire control systems so it works with other NATO stuff, probably an armor upgrade. There would probably be these old Russian guys who would fall to their knees and weep, having finally seen that Western armor they had been chasing since the 80's on Russian vehicles.
As for your military industry, lol, anything that would need to be changed would be pretty easy to work out. Most of it would be die and tooling changes, and maybe a few pieces of manufacturing equipment would have to be reworked or replaced but I highly doubt that. Everything but large caliber weapons would be facing some sort of STANAG conversion, so everything up to 30mm cannons would be considered. This would take weeks of figuring out, and there would be experts from just about every NATO country involved to help the Russian military fit. (this includes potentially adopting Russian equipment) This might seem counter-intuitive, but those huge ammo stockpiles you have would be relatively useless in the long run as troops train. Our military uses [i]billions[/i] of rounds of ammo every year in training, as does yours, and supplying combat formations burning through ammo would be easier if the ammo could come from any stockpile. Large munitions would be easier to resupply, as their rate of usage would be far less and combat rounds are very different than training rounds. Plus your military could be scaled back drastically, as your chief rival would be a military ally with an obligation to rush to your aid should you be attacked. I can imagine this would piss China off, (Russia and NATO rivalry serves Chinese interests, they like it) so maybe not scale back too much.[/QUOTE]
I don't think the US would allow Russia into NATO, it's not in their interest as Russia would be a counter-influence to the US. If anything it would make NATO essentially meaningless. Besides, many Russians would see this as surrender to their age old rival.
[QUOTE=laserguided;46067669]I don't think the US would allow Russia into NATO, it's not in their interest as Russia would be a counter-influence to the US. If anything it would make NATO essentially meaningless. Besides, many Russians would see this as surrender to their age old rival.[/QUOTE]See previous posts. There was, at one time, very serious talk about Russia joining NATO and the challenges that would create.
Maybe not now, but at one time it was a real possibility.
putin reminds me of a bond villain so much
he does evil shit
but you can't help admire how much of a magnificent bastard he is
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;46067534]Plus your military could be scaled back drastically, as your chief rival would be a military ally with an obligation to rush to your aid should you be attacked.[/QUOTE]
Really doubt about this part, by the way. We would have to keep a big army just because our country is pretty big, you know. Obligations are great, but it's always better to have a plan B just in case.
Not to mention that i don't really believe to all these "millitary obligations". Most of your allies would rush to hepl you only if there's some hope for them to gain something from this conflict.
[QUOTE=antianan;46068038]Really doubt about this part, by the way. We would have to keep a big army just because our country is pretty big, you know. Obligations are great, but it's always better to have a plan B just in case.
Not to mention that i don't really believe to all these "millitary obligations". Most of your allies would rush to hepl you only if there's some hope for them to gain something from this conflict.[/QUOTE]We've scaled back our military pretty hardcore after the USSR collapsed, we kept a lot of stuff mothballed and in reserve as a plan B in case shit goes south. Should NATO be called up on an Article 5 invocation, it's in everyone's best interests to play ball and breaking the treaty would mean alienating literally your only reliable friends.
[QUOTE=GunFox;46062593]At the end of the day if we want to destroy Russia, it will happen and the proximity of NATO troops to their border will be irrelevant. ICBM's care little about geography.[/QUOTE]
u wot mVIII
[editline]25th September 2014[/editline]
Russia also likely has more of these ICBM's than any other nation.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.