Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Russia - What are they up to?

Joined
23 November 2005
Posts
265
Reactions
0
I have been reading a few of the essays on monbiot.com lately...all well referenced.
He argues persuavisely that this missile defence system is a bit of a charade...only ever tested against one missile where the coordinates are known...not effective against cruise missiles...white coloured missiles are hard to identify...and it may cost a few million to create decoy missiles,but billions to create defences against new decoys that spring up.
All very interesting.
Would the Bush administration have us on?
 

moXJO

menace to society
Joined
15 August 2006
Posts
9,006
Reactions
5,757
"For the first time in the history of the Russian Navy the target of the missile was in an equatorial part of the Pacific Ocean rather than the Kura testing ground on the Kamchatka Peninsula," he said

Russia's strategic bombers have restarted regular patrols over the Atlantic Ocean irking NATO and a group of the Northern Fleet ships is on its way to the Caribbean to take part in joint exercises with US foe Venezuela

Wonder what they are up to. Hope it’s just a bit of posturing
 

Sean K

Moderator
Joined
21 April 2006
Posts
17,785
Reactions
3,567
Anyone's eyebrows raise when they heard Russia was bailing out Iceland (or giving them some help on the way down anyway).

Iceland is still in NATO, established to deter Russia and defeat them as required.

And what sort of resources does Iceland claim in the Arctic Circle? Hmmmm, I heard a while ago they could be sitting on some quite significant natural resources up there.

Next thing you know, Iceland's national sport is Judo.

:eek:
 

moXJO

menace to society
Joined
15 August 2006
Posts
9,006
Reactions
5,757
Russia gave back land to China the other day as well that they had previously stolen.
 
Joined
23 November 2005
Posts
265
Reactions
0
When Russia has even a fraction of the external military bases that the US has ...we may be able to take another look.
I see where they are going to reduce their military personnel to one million...is that about a third of the US?
 

Sean K

Moderator
Joined
21 April 2006
Posts
17,785
Reactions
3,567
When Russia has even a fraction of the external military bases that the US has ...we may be able to take another look.
I see where they are going to reduce their military personnel to one million...is that about a third of the US?
No, the US doesn't have the largest defence force in the world; China does, followed by India and then Russia. Please research that, as I'm going off memory. I think the US used to be second but have recently downsized.

US has lots of bases offshore because those countres have needed them for security. You're taking a totally anti-US perspective here Robert and don't seem to be seeing the background to the current US deployment worldwide. They saved Europe and Asia's aarse in WWII, and therefore had every right to place a base here and there to maintain security. Germany might be still divided if not for the US and UK, the French would be eating Sauerkraut, Centrsal Asia would be at peace (lol), and those E German swimmers would be crucifying us now!!

I think you've watched too many Michael Moore movies actually.
 
Joined
13 November 2006
Posts
701
Reactions
0
russia's conventional forces pail in comparison to the US in their number and their technology. I think that there is more behind the missile shield than media lets on, i mean why would they advetise the fact that this system could potentially intercept complex missiles with decoys if it could. Do you really think they would pour billions into missile defence if it wasn't effective anyway by basing them close to russia they are trying to neutralise them just after launch before they can perform manouvours and release decoys. We also have to remember that first strike gives a big advantage t the side employing it i have no doubts the us could take out maybe 90% of their nuke capability in a first strike and leave the less sofisticated or fewer missiles to take out with defence system.

Besides that the russian economy is still very fragile and can't maintain a military anything like the US. They rely on oil money, oil just hit $80 and if it hits &60 we could see another russian economic disaster.

With all the crap going on now in the world eonomy the US still has the most evolved, resilient and broad economy in the world and even though china may be the worlds manufacturer the US stll exports huge amounts of goods. The yuan is rapidly increasing in value too just as chinese demand will increase and inflation. Expect the tides to start turning and manufacturing jobs start moving out of china albiet not huge amounts. US exports and manufacturing will have to increase to get them out ofthis mess.

US hegemony going no where, decoupled my butt:p:
 
Joined
13 November 2006
Posts
701
Reactions
0
No, the US doesn't have the largest defence force in the world; China does, followed by India and then Russia. Please research that, as I'm going off memory.

US has lots of bases offshore because those countres have needed them for security. You're taking a totally anti-US perspective here Robert and don't seem to be seeing the background to the current US deployment worldwide. They saved Europe and Asia's aarse in WWII, and therefore had every right to place a base here and there to maintain security. Germany might be still divided if not for the US and UK, the French would be eating Sauerkraut, Centrsal Asia would be at peace (lol), and those E German swimmers would be crucifying us now!!

I think you've watched too many Michael Moore movies actually.

your tallking about man power there not actual power. look in terms of current expenditure and then we also havve to take into account that the US has been spending this much forthe last 30 -40 years china just started ramping up spending. Under Ike defence spending was 10% of GDP under ragan it was 6% now its about 4%.

The US could wipe the floor with china, there is no other country in the world that can project its power like the US. Sure the chinese have 10 Mill solidiers on mainland china and they are all somewhat trained with mediocre weaponry none of the advanced intergration between all the military aspects. You can throw hundreds of thousands of people at an enemy but it wont win a war, WW1 taught us that. You need large , well equiped fully intergrated forces.
 
Joined
13 November 2006
Posts
701
Reactions
0
No, the US doesn't have the largest defence force in the world; China does, followed by India and then Russia. Please research that, as I'm going off memory. I think the US used to be second but have recently downsized.

US has lots of bases offshore because those countres have needed them for security. You're taking a totally anti-US perspective here Robert and don't seem to be seeing the background to the current US deployment worldwide. They saved Europe and Asia's aarse in WWII, and therefore had every right to place a base here and there to maintain security. Germany might be still divided if not for the US and UK, the French would be eating Sauerkraut, Centrsal Asia would be at peace (lol), and those E German swimmers would be crucifying us now!!

I think you've watched too many Michael Moore movies actually.


One other thing that is highly contencoius claims, The US was neutral in the first years of WW2 then then walzted in in the end and smashed the already running german forces the USSR did the hard yards in WW2. The US waited for the perfect timing and simply walked in and picked up the pieces. ure they helped in many situations but they always got rewards for doing so. German and japan are basically US childen along with south korea and maybe oon to be iraq? BAse enough forces in a country for long enough it becomes a home away from home. Also look before the world wars america has a history of fighting for power and resources they fought the spanish, english, french and the mexicans they are always out for themselves first
 

Sean K

Moderator
Joined
21 April 2006
Posts
17,785
Reactions
3,567
your tallking about man power there not actual power. look in terms of current expenditure and then we also havve to take into account that the US has been spending this much forthe last 30 -40 years china just started ramping up spending. Under Ike defence spending was 10% of GDP under ragan it was 6% now its about 4%.

The US could wipe the floor with china, there is no other country in the world that can project its power like the US. Sure the chinese have 10 Mill solidiers on mainland china and they are all somewhat trained with mediocre weaponry none of the advanced intergration between all the military aspects. You can throw hundreds of thousands of people at an enemy but it wont win a war, WW1 taught us that. You need large , well equiped fully intergrated forces.
Yes, I agree Kiwi. Australia punches above it's weight because it has the technology also compared to troops on the ground.

The US is the most powerful, although not largest, military forces of all time. Maybe the Romans, Vandals, Persians, Ottomans, Khans had more absolute power during their reign....Probably. And that wasn't long ago.

Who will be next? China obviously.

It's just a cycle of the human Earth. Enjoy and sustain our time while it lasts I say!

:eek:
 
Joined
19 February 2008
Posts
38
Reactions
0
They saved Europe and Asia's aarse in WWII

May I ask what this assertion is based on?
1939 - WWII starts
1941 - USSR attacked by Germany
1942/43 - Stalingrad battle, vastly seen as a turning point in the war in Europe
June 1944 - Most of the USSR's territory liberated from the Germans, Soviet troops advance quickly, it became obvious that Germany was losing the war fast and Europe may be occupied by the Soviets (and communist regimes established all over).
June 1944 - the allies invade Northern France. The war's outcome had been largely decided prior to that, they just wanted their piece of the pie as well as to prevent the USSR from occupying all of Europe.

Why did the yanks wait till mid-1944 to join the war against Germany?
In my opinion, they adopted a wait and see who wins approach and jumped on board when things began to really look up.
 

Sean K

Moderator
Joined
21 April 2006
Posts
17,785
Reactions
3,567
May I ask what this assertion is based on?

...

In my opinion, they adopted a wait and see who wins approach and jumped on board when things began to really look up.

Yes, many are critical of their failure to enter the war earlier.

Important points:

Japan invaded China before WWII started.
Russia supported China.
Germany annexes Austria.
UK and Franch announce support for Poland independance.
Germany takes Poland.
US Navy starts protecting the oceans for British convoys.

Ahhh, crap, I forget the rest, but you should google it to see how the war eventuated and was finalised. The US didn't get their hands too diry early on, but perhaps lucky ythey didn't. They saved 'our' way of life, at the time.

Wish this was live, would be a more interesting conversation.

kennas
 
Joined
19 February 2008
Posts
38
Reactions
0
They saved 'our' way of life, at the time.
kennas

Ah OK, I see your point now. I took your initial comment to mean that the yanks actually won the war.
But I agree, if they didn't jump in in 1944 Europe would be very different now. The Germans would still have been defeated though.
 

Sean K

Moderator
Joined
21 April 2006
Posts
17,785
Reactions
3,567
The Germans would still have been defeated though.
Would they?

:confused:

I need to check who had the ingredients for the bomb at this time...

The world was at a tipping point.

We were on the lucky edge, I think..

k
 

chops_a_must

Printing My Own Money
Joined
1 November 2006
Posts
4,636
Reactions
2
Would they?

:confused:

I need to check who had the ingredients for the bomb at this time...

The world was at a tipping point.

We were on the lucky edge, I think..

k

Despite all the romantic notions, the 'only' front that mattered was the eastern front. Absolutely no doubt about it. :2twocents
 
Joined
12 March 2006
Posts
204
Reactions
0
WW2 is a fantastic topic to discuss if you are interested in history. Yes I agree Kennas its a topic much better discussed in person.

Lets not get to carried away here with the notion that Russia would have defeated the Germans by themselves. For a start the Allies were pouring military and civilian aid into Russia to prop them up. The majority of this coming from the US. The Russians also had the peace of mind once they had assurances from Japan that they wouldn't invade, of fighting on only the one front. The rest of the allies were fighting a bitter jungle war in the pacific, a desert war in the middle east and a insurgency in occupied Europe.
It was the fighting on too many fronts which was the downfall of the Nazies.

It has been written about widely that the Allies deliberately delayed their invasion of Europe in order to insure the Russians would be worn down to some extent so that they wouldn't be able to romp all over Europe. Its probably a fair argument and I can see that it makes sense from the Allies point of view, after all Winston Churchill distrusted Stalin, and with good reason as it turned out.
 
Joined
23 November 2005
Posts
265
Reactions
0
No Kennas I am trying to get a bit of balance and perspective here...I was brought up with the Yellow peril and Russians are after world rule etc.
Do you think that their (US) massive base at Guam is to protect the local inhabitants...few that they are... or for other puposes?
The truth is out there...somewhere
Not it seems on asf.
 
Top