User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:02:17 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, so you are a libertarian. That explains it then. Am I? Are you sure? Before you thought I was a true leftist, now you think I'm a libertarian. I guess if you keep guessing you'll eventually be right. You're about as accurate in your analysis as those Senior NATO planners were with the Soviet Union. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:03:37 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That was already addressed, and it's humbling. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So did they hit any doctors without borders? The Russians are getting a lot of real world experience lately. Those of you talking them up so high, and takling down about them so much are both in the wrong would be my guess. I bet it would be a real eye opener to see what our missile failure rate was. That was already addressed, and it's humbling. No, it wasn't. The "humbling" information dealt with the destruction of targets from 24 years ago. Meanwhile, 20% of Russia cruise missiles are landing and exploding in Iran. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:05:30 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Am I? Are you sure? Before you thought I was a true leftist, now you think I'm a libertarian. I guess if you keep guessing you'll eventually be right. You're about as accurate in your analysis as those Senior NATO planners were with the Soviet Union. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ok, so you are a libertarian. That explains it then. Am I? Are you sure? Before you thought I was a true leftist, now you think I'm a libertarian. I guess if you keep guessing you'll eventually be right. You're about as accurate in your analysis as those Senior NATO planners were with the Soviet Union. libertarians and leftists share much in common, including the "MIC" reference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:06:42 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just wondering if everyone claiming the Russians only build shit realize this was a missile that was "in development" just 6 weeks ago? Pulled from another thread on here earlier today: Russian Navy Breaks the Seal. Make sure to read the linked piece by Bill Gertz in there as well. This just happened to be a real-world, operational test for them. 87% success rate on a new platform's first actual combat use doesn't strike me as all that bad. state of the art guidance system misses the entire country and no c&c controls to ditch them when they go way way wayward.... yawn. they would have saved more face stating they were just chucking old stockpiled crap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:07:06 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, it wasn't. The "humbling" information dealt with the destruction of targets from 24 years ago. Meanwhile, 20% of Russia cruise missiles are landing and exploding in Iran. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So did they hit any doctors without borders? The Russians are getting a lot of real world experience lately. Those of you talking them up so high, and takling down about them so much are both in the wrong would be my guess. I bet it would be a real eye opener to see what our missile failure rate was. That was already addressed, and it's humbling. No, it wasn't. The "humbling" information dealt with the destruction of targets from 24 years ago. Meanwhile, 20% of Russia cruise missiles are landing and exploding in Iran. I've read enough of your "analyses" to take it with a grain of salt. You aren't the all-knowing genius you'd like to portray yourself as. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:13:12 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
libertarians and leftists share much in common, including the "MIC" reference. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, so you are a libertarian. That explains it then. Am I? Are you sure? Before you thought I was a true leftist, now you think I'm a libertarian. I guess if you keep guessing you'll eventually be right. You're about as accurate in your analysis as those Senior NATO planners were with the Soviet Union. libertarians and leftists share much in common, including the "MIC" reference. Yep, Eisenhower was evidently the original true leftist and libertarian. Because anyone that disagrees with your peeps getting a blank check because "Fear the Russians and PAY ME!" is a libertarian or true leftist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:13:45 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In Soviet Russia cruise missile cruises wherever the hell it wants. Russia~ "we put the miss back in missile". "Let's see Capitalist Pigs do any better with Russian Made crap after enjoying a quart or two of cheap vodka".~ Missing Russian General http://www.thebreakingtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/PUTIN-NETANYAHU-DISCUSS-SYRIA-facebook.jpg https://flashtrafficblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/netanyahu-and-putin-june-2012.jpg http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-06-26-VladimirPutinNetanyahu.jpg In every one of those pictures Putin is a bitch, if you look at the body language. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:15:22 PM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:16:07 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In every one of those pictures Putin is a bitch, if you look at the body language. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In Soviet Russia cruise missile cruises wherever the hell it wants. Russia~ "we put the miss back in missile". "Let's see Capitalist Pigs do any better with Russian Made crap after enjoying a quart or two of cheap vodka".~ Missing Russian General http://www.thebreakingtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/PUTIN-NETANYAHU-DISCUSS-SYRIA-facebook.jpg https://flashtrafficblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/netanyahu-and-putin-june-2012.jpg http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-06-26-VladimirPutinNetanyahu.jpg In every one of those pictures Putin is a bitch, if you look at the body language. His posture indicates he's legitimately scared of Netanyahu. As he should be. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:21:49 PM EDT
[#10]
Lessee... lemme look in my Give A Fuck box...
Nope- all out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:24:43 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, Eisenhower was evidently the original true leftist and libertarian. Because anyone that disagrees with your peeps getting a blank check because "Fear the Russians and PAY ME!" is a libertarian or true leftist. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ok, so you are a libertarian. That explains it then. Am I? Are you sure? Before you thought I was a true leftist, now you think I'm a libertarian. I guess if you keep guessing you'll eventually be right. You're about as accurate in your analysis as those Senior NATO planners were with the Soviet Union. libertarians and leftists share much in common, including the "MIC" reference. Yep, Eisenhower was evidently the original true leftist and libertarian. Because anyone that disagrees with your peeps getting a blank check because "Fear the Russians and PAY ME!" is a libertarian or true leftist. Since liberals and left-leaning self described "libertarians" quote him so often, it's a reasonable conclusion you share much in common, ideologically speaking. Your professors are proud of you, |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:25:48 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I disagree with your assessment to some degree. The Russians are capable of producing exceptional weapons & technology. They fired what 36 cruise missles and one of them went off course. These are also barely out of prototype. Lets look at it another way, an American cruise missle hits right 98% of the time but costs 1.5 million. A Russian missle hits right 88% percent of the time but costs 400,000. They can and will fire 4 for every 1 or ours. In fact they say that they launched two missles per site this last week. Also the are willing to use cluster/fuel air explosives in their warheads. They might not be as great as our stuff but it gets the job done without costing two arms and a leg. Some Russian weapons I can tell you are every bit a match for what we issue. Case in point the T90MS is an awsome tank, I use to think like most Americans that they were junk but recent events in Ukraine have changed my mind. With the help of France/Germany and the USA they have been able to bring that tank up to western standards, probably even exceeding the M1. Also some of their new missle systems, radar, artillery, electric warefare measures have caused serious problems for western gear. Before you blast me I can say that I wish it were not so and only came to that opinion after assessing the Ukrainian conflict. The armor on the t90 with the newest reactive armor is pretty much inpenetrable by anything except top attack munitions,. Even western tandem warheads and sabots failed to destroy them in the few occasions they were available. Usually the Russians export thier crap stuff to the ME and that is usually what we encounter Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. I disagree with your assessment to some degree. The Russians are capable of producing exceptional weapons & technology. They fired what 36 cruise missles and one of them went off course. These are also barely out of prototype. Lets look at it another way, an American cruise missle hits right 98% of the time but costs 1.5 million. A Russian missle hits right 88% percent of the time but costs 400,000. They can and will fire 4 for every 1 or ours. In fact they say that they launched two missles per site this last week. Also the are willing to use cluster/fuel air explosives in their warheads. They might not be as great as our stuff but it gets the job done without costing two arms and a leg. Some Russian weapons I can tell you are every bit a match for what we issue. Case in point the T90MS is an awsome tank, I use to think like most Americans that they were junk but recent events in Ukraine have changed my mind. With the help of France/Germany and the USA they have been able to bring that tank up to western standards, probably even exceeding the M1. Also some of their new missle systems, radar, artillery, electric warefare measures have caused serious problems for western gear. Before you blast me I can say that I wish it were not so and only came to that opinion after assessing the Ukrainian conflict. The armor on the t90 with the newest reactive armor is pretty much inpenetrable by anything except top attack munitions,. Even western tandem warheads and sabots failed to destroy them in the few occasions they were available. Usually the Russians export thier crap stuff to the ME and that is usually what we encounter Pity. The Javelin is unobtanium in theater. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:27:07 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah but they make a hell of a lot of them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. Yeah but they make a hell of a lot of them. Based on their COUNTRY'S economy that's about the same as CALIFORNIA'S. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOk |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:28:06 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since liberals and left-leaning self described "libertarians" quote him so often, it's a reasonable conclusion you share much in common, ideologically speaking. Your professors are proud of you, LOL Eisenhower is the new Che Guevera according to you. Its hilarious that you turned out to be a contractor. So poetic. Will laugh about this for days. Thanks |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:29:13 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Based on their COUNTRY'S economy that's about the same as CALIFORNIA'S. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOk Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. Yeah but they make a hell of a lot of them. Based on their COUNTRY'S economy that's about the same as CALIFORNIA'S. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOk And that was before the oil price war and sanctions. Putin is cutting coupons to arm his country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:30:24 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those same NATO officers missed a shit ton, and overstated the Soviet threat in such a significant way that they someone missed its collapse. Assuming the worst? No, I think preparing for reality, instead of some make believe land where a conventional war with Russia is even possible when both of us had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. Acting like M1 tanks or T80s were going to change the course of a possible war. Hilarious. Any upright American concerned with the prosperity and survival of this nation would be wise to question the fear mongering and blank check mentality of those who benefit financially from war. "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." - another apparent true Leftist Listening to professional soldiers discussing military threats is like listening to global war fanatics working at state funded organizations. Somehow, the world is always about to end, unless of course if you give me money. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The leftist part is a response to your assertion that my analyses of the Soviet / Russian threat was / is merely posturing myself for a post-military defense contractor job (I already am a contractor, although it has nothing to do with Russia specifically). As to the rest of your statement, you are asserting that senior NATO planners from multiple countries knew less than you, and that they were inept. So your assertion is that senior NATO planners possessed such good intel that they somehow missed that the Soviet military was a military version of the Potemkin Village, that Soviet troops in Afghanistan suffered 75% casualties from infectious diseases easily prevented by not cooking with shit stained fingers, and that the Berlin Wall fucking collapsed and they didn't know. Not rating very high in the confidence dept. When looking for motive about why something happens, ask yourself, "Cui bono" Who benefits? You are a defense contractor. Your entire profession revolves around there being not only a constant fear of war but also that we should spend money on whatever new toy or service your employer is selling. Starting to make sense why you would try to get Americans to fear Russia. My assertion is that senior NATO officers knew what they were doing, what they had to prepare for, and what they were faced with while you make a weak attempt at rewriting history decades after the fact. I have no idea what your source of information is, but it seems to have a certain left-leaning "peacenik" bent to it. Are you a libertarian? Just curious. You have no idea what I do nor do you need to know (nothing glamorous, I promise), but rest assured I have no vested interest in shaping anyone's opinion as to what a threat the USSR was, or what it is now. It affects my job or retirement not one iota. As for "fearing" Russia, I simply believe it to be prudent NOT to become complacent about what they can or cannot do. Assume the worst, prepare accordingly, and there will be no surprises. No upright American concerned with the prosperity and survival of our nation would argue against that. That line of thought served us well during the Cold War, even if you're incapable of "getting it". Those same NATO officers missed a shit ton, and overstated the Soviet threat in such a significant way that they someone missed its collapse. Assuming the worst? No, I think preparing for reality, instead of some make believe land where a conventional war with Russia is even possible when both of us had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. Acting like M1 tanks or T80s were going to change the course of a possible war. Hilarious. Any upright American concerned with the prosperity and survival of this nation would be wise to question the fear mongering and blank check mentality of those who benefit financially from war. "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." - another apparent true Leftist Listening to professional soldiers discussing military threats is like listening to global war fanatics working at state funded organizations. Somehow, the world is always about to end, unless of course if you give me money. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:32:08 PM EDT
[#17]
Russians don't have accidents. Wherever the missiles struck there were rebels present. The only problem is the evidence was incinerated. How convenient.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:36:16 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Both of you are missing that the military should be strong and prepared for the worst. Even our top level analysts didn't know about how fucking awesome we were and how awesomely we were fucking up the USSR's shit til decades after the wall fell.
I think we should be armed well enough to deal with likely military threats. Jets, aircraft carrier and brigade combat teams aren't cheap, let alone free. The problem I have is when our nation's "best" analysts somehow miss some pretty major shit. Like that most Red Army armor forces on the border weren't combat ready. About how absolutely terrible the Soviets performed during the Afghan War, not just tactically or failings with strategy, but significant institutional issues like discipline, leadership, and combat readiness of non-elite airborne and SPETSNAZ units. Or that the Soviet economy was crashing down while we were talking about Star Wars, the Soviets were on the verge of complete and utter collapse, and those "experts" somehow missed it at the same time they were telling everyone to be scared and give us more money for cool shit. I guess I'm cynical. I understand the mil needs money to do well. I just want them to work for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:42:28 PM EDT
[#19]
Insah'allah??????
Am I using that correctly?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:44:27 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL Eisenhower is the new Che Guevera according to you. Its hilarious that you turned out to be a contractor. So poetic. Will laugh about this for days. Thanks Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Since liberals and left-leaning self described "libertarians" quote him so often, it's a reasonable conclusion you share much in common, ideologically speaking. Your professors are proud of you, LOL Eisenhower is the new Che Guevera according to you. Its hilarious that you turned out to be a contractor. So poetic. Will laugh about this for days. Thanks It's hilarious that you think anyone but you cares if I am (as if it validates your amateur analyses when questioned; how dare we!). It's like listening to the dimtards go on and on about Dick Cheney and Haliburton. 
So poetic. Will laugh about your leftist perspective for days (farts loudly). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:48:49 PM EDT
[#21]
... something sounds fishy
I cannot see missing a target by at LEAST 400 miles |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:48:50 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Both of you are missing that the military should be strong and prepared for the worst. Even our top level analysts didn't know about how fucking awesome we were and how awesomely we were fucking up the USSR's shit til decades after the wall fell.
I'm not missing shit. Your first sentence is exactly my point, and if you go back to some of my earlier posts, you'll see that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:49:25 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. lol. Nope. They were just big. Some were pretty darn fast, but all were still basically shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:50:20 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think we should be armed well enough to deal with likely military threats. Jets, aircraft carrier and brigade combat teams aren't cheap, let alone free. The problem I have is when our nation's "best" analysts somehow miss some pretty major shit. Like that most Red Army armor forces on the border weren't combat ready. About how absolutely terrible the Soviets performed during the Afghan War, not just tactically or failings with strategy, but significant institutional issues like discipline, leadership, and combat readiness of non-elite airborne and SPETSNAZ units. Or that the Soviet economy was crashing down while we were talking about Star Wars, the Soviets were on the verge of complete and utter collapse, and those "experts" somehow missed it at the same time they were telling everyone to be scared and give us more money for cool shit. I guess I'm cynical. I understand the mil needs money to do well. I just want them to work for it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Both of you are missing that the military should be strong and prepared for the worst. Even our top level analysts didn't know about how fucking awesome we were and how awesomely we were fucking up the USSR's shit til decades after the wall fell.
I think we should be armed well enough to deal with likely military threats. Jets, aircraft carrier and brigade combat teams aren't cheap, let alone free. The problem I have is when our nation's "best" analysts somehow miss some pretty major shit. Like that most Red Army armor forces on the border weren't combat ready. About how absolutely terrible the Soviets performed during the Afghan War, not just tactically or failings with strategy, but significant institutional issues like discipline, leadership, and combat readiness of non-elite airborne and SPETSNAZ units. Or that the Soviet economy was crashing down while we were talking about Star Wars, the Soviets were on the verge of complete and utter collapse, and those "experts" somehow missed it at the same time they were telling everyone to be scared and give us more money for cool shit. I guess I'm cynical. I understand the mil needs money to do well. I just want them to work for it. Your kind of Mondaycherryquarterbacking things. To get Soviets to that point and US to the point they were at the end of the cold war took years and years of back and forth. Space race, Korea, Nam, Millions of dollars and thousands(millions?)of lives. You had to have years of Nam before they started to develop the whiz bang tech you saw in GW1. The Soviets also had Chem Bio and Nukes to support their conscripts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:52:39 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol. Nope. They were just big. Some were pretty darn fast, but all were still basically shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. lol. Nope. They were just big. Some were pretty darn fast, but all were still basically shit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the Mig 29 not carry a missile that had off-boresight capability well before we did? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:56:35 PM EDT
[#26]
Pit thread!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 9:59:12 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pit thread!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:00:38 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the Mig 29 not carry a missile that had off-boresight capability well before we did? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. lol. Nope. They were just big. Some were pretty darn fast, but all were still basically shit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the Mig 29 not carry a missile that had off-boresight capability well before we did? Doesn't mean it actually worked consistently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:00:59 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Know why they beat us with sputnik? They couldn't make small warheads. So their missles had a heavy lift capability. So they were huge, and had to be placed in the open, and they took about 18 hours to get ready for launch. By contrast, our missles were small, hardened, and ready to launch in about 15 minutes. However, they had a platform ready to launch a large load into space. Because they needed it because they were technically behind us. Back in the day few knew this and hence there was a huge panic about them passing us technically. It resulted in garbage like "new math". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. Know why they beat us with sputnik? They couldn't make small warheads. So their missles had a heavy lift capability. So they were huge, and had to be placed in the open, and they took about 18 hours to get ready for launch. By contrast, our missles were small, hardened, and ready to launch in about 15 minutes. However, they had a platform ready to launch a large load into space. Because they needed it because they were technically behind us. Back in the day few knew this and hence there was a huge panic about them passing us technically. It resulted in garbage like "new math". They also had deniability for their failures. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:09:12 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't mean it actually worked consistently. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. lol. Nope. They were just big. Some were pretty darn fast, but all were still basically shit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the Mig 29 not carry a missile that had off-boresight capability well before we did? Doesn't mean it actually worked consistently. Of course not, but like the LRF and composite armor incorporated into the T-64 fielded in the late '60s (while we were still tooling around with M48s and M60s with RHA and analog FC computers), the Russians seem willing to exploit innovative technology to overcome other shortcomings. Execution may be mediocre, but when it does actually work..... Not to mention, they seem to have the ability to field new technology without showing their hand years in advance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:10:02 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Russians are a joke. Only thing they ever had going for them was strength in numbers and big enough nukes to negate a minute of continent accuracy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. Russians are a joke. Only thing they ever had going for them was strength in numbers and big enough nukes to negate a minute of continent accuracy. They didnt have near the number of nukes they claimed. They used fake missiles in their parades to make them look more powerful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:20:12 PM EDT
[#32]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:24:39 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ... something sounds fishy I cannot see missing a target by at LEAST 400 miles |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:26:56 PM EDT
[#34]
Read the book. It doesn't end well for them......or the Syrians......or the Iranians.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:27:52 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think we should be armed well enough to deal with likely military threats. Jets, aircraft carrier and brigade combat teams aren't cheap, let alone free. The problem I have is when our nation's "best" analysts somehow miss some pretty major shit. Like that most Red Army armor forces on the border weren't combat ready. About how absolutely terrible the Soviets performed during the Afghan War, not just tactically or failings with strategy, but significant institutional issues like discipline, leadership, and combat readiness of non-elite airborne and SPETSNAZ units. Or that the Soviet economy was crashing down while we were talking about Star Wars, the Soviets were on the verge of complete and utter collapse, and those "experts" somehow missed it at the same time they were telling everyone to be scared and give us more money for cool shit. I guess I'm cynical. I understand the mil needs money to do well. I just want them to work for it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Both of you are missing that the military should be strong and prepared for the worst. Even our top level analysts didn't know about how fucking awesome we were and how awesomely we were fucking up the USSR's shit til decades after the wall fell.
I think we should be armed well enough to deal with likely military threats. Jets, aircraft carrier and brigade combat teams aren't cheap, let alone free. The problem I have is when our nation's "best" analysts somehow miss some pretty major shit. Like that most Red Army armor forces on the border weren't combat ready. About how absolutely terrible the Soviets performed during the Afghan War, not just tactically or failings with strategy, but significant institutional issues like discipline, leadership, and combat readiness of non-elite airborne and SPETSNAZ units. Or that the Soviet economy was crashing down while we were talking about Star Wars, the Soviets were on the verge of complete and utter collapse, and those "experts" somehow missed it at the same time they were telling everyone to be scared and give us more money for cool shit. I guess I'm cynical. I understand the mil needs money to do well. I just want them to work for it. The best analysts didn't know the truth. That is the nature of intel/counter intel. What you choose to believe is the truth. And you're always left rerunning possibilities, because there's that chance.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:28:16 PM EDT
[#36]
thats quite a large fuck up
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:29:33 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your kind of Mondaycherryquarterbacking things. To get Soviets to that point and US to the point they were at the end of the cold war took years and years of back and forth. Space race, Korea, Nam, Millions of dollars and thousands(millions?)of lives. You had to have years of Nam before they started to develop the whiz bang tech you saw in GW1. The Soviets also had Chem Bio and Nukes to support their conscripts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Both of you are missing that the military should be strong and prepared for the worst. Even our top level analysts didn't know about how fucking awesome we were and how awesomely we were fucking up the USSR's shit til decades after the wall fell.
I think we should be armed well enough to deal with likely military threats. Jets, aircraft carrier and brigade combat teams aren't cheap, let alone free. The problem I have is when our nation's "best" analysts somehow miss some pretty major shit. Like that most Red Army armor forces on the border weren't combat ready. About how absolutely terrible the Soviets performed during the Afghan War, not just tactically or failings with strategy, but significant institutional issues like discipline, leadership, and combat readiness of non-elite airborne and SPETSNAZ units. Or that the Soviet economy was crashing down while we were talking about Star Wars, the Soviets were on the verge of complete and utter collapse, and those "experts" somehow missed it at the same time they were telling everyone to be scared and give us more money for cool shit. I guess I'm cynical. I understand the mil needs money to do well. I just want them to work for it. Your kind of Mondaycherryquarterbacking things. To get Soviets to that point and US to the point they were at the end of the cold war took years and years of back and forth. Space race, Korea, Nam, Millions of dollars and thousands(millions?)of lives. You had to have years of Nam before they started to develop the whiz bang tech you saw in GW1. The Soviets also had Chem Bio and Nukes to support their conscripts. You're talking about litres of wodka, correct? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:29:50 PM EDT
[#38]
 You guys actually believe this bull shit? Not one mention on any Iranian news source...http://www.ncr-iran.org |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:34:07 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Both of you are missing that the military should be strong and prepared for the worst. Even our top level analysts didn't know about how fucking awesome we were and how awesomely we were fucking up the USSR's shit til decades after the wall fell. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The leftist part is a response to your assertion that my analyses of the Soviet / Russian threat was / is merely posturing myself for a post-military defense contractor job (I already am a contractor, although it has nothing to do with Russia specifically). As to the rest of your statement, you are asserting that senior NATO planners from multiple countries knew less than you, and that they were inept. So your assertion is that senior NATO planners possessed such good intel that they somehow missed that the Soviet military was a military version of the Potemkin Village, that Soviet troops in Afghanistan suffered 75% casualties from infectious diseases easily prevented by not cooking with shit stained fingers, and that the Berlin Wall fucking collapsed and they didn't know. Not rating very high in the confidence dept. When looking for motive about why something happens, ask yourself, "Cui bono" Who benefits? You are a defense contractor. Your entire profession revolves around there being not only a constant fear of war but also that we should spend money on whatever new toy or service your employer is selling. Starting to make sense why you would try to get Americans to fear Russia. My assertion is that senior NATO officers knew what they were doing, what they had to prepare for, and what they were faced with while you make a weak attempt at rewriting history decades after the fact. I have no idea what your source of information is, but it seems to have a certain left-leaning "peacenik" bent to it. Are you a libertarian? Just curious. You have no idea what I do nor do you need to know (nothing glamorous, I promise), but rest assured I have no vested interest in shaping anyone's opinion as to what a threat the USSR was, or what it is now. It affects my job or retirement not one iota. As for "fearing" Russia, I simply believe it to be prudent NOT to become complacent about what they can or cannot do. Assume the worst, prepare accordingly, and there will be no surprises. No upright American concerned with the prosperity and survival of our nation would argue against that. That line of thought served us well during the Cold War, even if you're incapable of "getting it". Those same NATO officers missed a shit ton, and overstated the Soviet threat in such a significant way that they someone missed its collapse. Assuming the worst? No, I think preparing for reality, instead of some make believe land where a conventional war with Russia is even possible when both of us had tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. Acting like M1 tanks or T80s were going to change the course of a possible war. Hilarious. Any upright American concerned with the prosperity and survival of this nation would be wise to question the fear mongering and blank check mentality of those who benefit financially from war. "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." - another apparent true Leftist Listening to professional soldiers discussing military threats is like listening to global war fanatics working at state funded organizations. Somehow, the world is always about to end, unless of course if you give me money. We bankrupted them and brought about their end on the cheap with no destruction of Europe. The wall was even chopped down in part by volounteers for free. We couldn't just match the Soviets, we had to out-match them for in order to win, our goals were much greater. We were defending the whole of the world and everything of value in it. They merely had to destroy the world to win. We were the builders and they were vandals. The uni-brows that stood before the Kremlin watching missiles drive by on May Day weren't about protecting anyone or anything save their power. Stalin slaughtered his people wholesale if you need proof. America's military also needed to over-match the Soviet's because Americans don't want to lose the lives of their military men needlessly and won't tolerate meat grinder strategy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:34:32 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're talking about litres of wodka, correct? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Both of you are missing that the military should be strong and prepared for the worst. Even our top level analysts didn't know about how fucking awesome we were and how awesomely we were fucking up the USSR's shit til decades after the wall fell.
I think we should be armed well enough to deal with likely military threats. Jets, aircraft carrier and brigade combat teams aren't cheap, let alone free. The problem I have is when our nation's "best" analysts somehow miss some pretty major shit. Like that most Red Army armor forces on the border weren't combat ready. About how absolutely terrible the Soviets performed during the Afghan War, not just tactically or failings with strategy, but significant institutional issues like discipline, leadership, and combat readiness of non-elite airborne and SPETSNAZ units. Or that the Soviet economy was crashing down while we were talking about Star Wars, the Soviets were on the verge of complete and utter collapse, and those "experts" somehow missed it at the same time they were telling everyone to be scared and give us more money for cool shit. I guess I'm cynical. I understand the mil needs money to do well. I just want them to work for it. Your kind of Mondaycherryquarterbacking things. To get Soviets to that point and US to the point they were at the end of the cold war took years and years of back and forth. Space race, Korea, Nam, Millions of dollars and thousands(millions?)of lives. You had to have years of Nam before they started to develop the whiz bang tech you saw in GW1. The Soviets also had Chem Bio and Nukes to support their conscripts. You're talking about litres of wodka, correct? Just the Chem part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:38:43 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Soviet collapse was brought about by American military strength which threatened the Soviets where they were weakest and by stopping their ability to earn from their only true export which was natural gas and petroleum. We over-matched them militarily, forcing them to try to match us with no way to earn money. We bankrupted them and brought about their end on the cheap with no destruction of Europe. The wall was even chopped down in part by volounteers for free. We couldn't just match the Soviets, we had to out-match them for in order to win, our goals were much greater. We were defending the whole of the world and everything of value in it. They merely had to destroy the world to win. We were the builders and they were vandals. The uni-brows that stood before the Kremlin watching missiles drive by on May Day weren't about protecting anyone or anything save their power. Stalin slaughtered his people wholesale if you need proof. America's military also needed to over-match the Soviet's because Americans don't want to lose the lives of their military men needlessly and won't tolerate meat grinder strategy. That's a ridiculously small part of the big picture. You may as well be describing moss on one tree in the forest. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:40:17 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just the Chem part. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your kind of Mondaycherryquarterbacking things. To get Soviets to that point and US to the point they were at the end of the cold war took years and years of back and forth. Space race, Korea, Nam, Millions of dollars and thousands(millions?)of lives. You had to have years of Nam before they started to develop the whiz bang tech you saw in GW1. The Soviets also had Chem Bio and Nukes to support their conscripts. You're talking about litres of wodka, correct? Just the Chem part. Sorry, possibly because of the day at work and the beer  , I misread that they had Chem, Bio, and Nuke support FOR their conscripts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:45:31 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry, possibly because of the day at work and the beer , I misread that they had Chem, Bio, and Nuke support FOR their conscripts.Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your kind of Mondaycherryquarterbacking things. To get Soviets to that point and US to the point they were at the end of the cold war took years and years of back and forth. Space race, Korea, Nam, Millions of dollars and thousands(millions?)of lives. You had to have years of Nam before they started to develop the whiz bang tech you saw in GW1. The Soviets also had Chem Bio and Nukes to support their conscripts. You're talking about litres of wodka, correct? Just the Chem part. Sorry, possibly because of the day at work and the beer , I misread that they had Chem, Bio, and Nuke support FOR their conscripts.At one point they had some pretty aggresive plans for CBN warfare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 10:51:56 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
state of the art guidance system misses the entire country and no c&c controls to ditch them when they go way way wayward.... yawn. they would have saved more face stating they were just chucking old stockpiled crap. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just wondering if everyone claiming the Russians only build shit realize this was a missile that was "in development" just 6 weeks ago? Pulled from another thread on here earlier today: Russian Navy Breaks the Seal. Make sure to read the linked piece by Bill Gertz in there as well. This just happened to be a real-world, operational test for them. 87% success rate on a new platform's first actual combat use doesn't strike me as all that bad. state of the art guidance system misses the entire country and no c&c controls to ditch them when they go way way wayward.... yawn. they would have saved more face stating they were just chucking old stockpiled crap. You don't put failsafes on war shots. What happens if the other side figures out how to send your stuff the self destruct code? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:06:58 PM EDT
[#45]
Did they fill the cruise missiles with mayonaise before firing them?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:18:43 PM EDT
[#46]
Lets hope the Israelis take advantage of this and buy some Russian cruise missiles and use them to good effect in Iran.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:21:18 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryBibi: "We haxxor'd your missles, Pooty-poot! Lol" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:32:24 PM EDT
[#48]
The best cruise missle Russia could design, targeting system by Barska.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:35:36 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The best cruise missle Russia could design, targeting system by Barska. "But the coordinates only rattle around 400 miles..." "The INS is rubber armored against damage." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 11:40:48 PM EDT
[#50]
Just heard on the news on the way home that Iran and Russia are denying that Iran had any missiles crash on its soil.
American military experts ( Pentagon ?) are saying the missiles failed and fell on Iranian territory. I'm siding with the Americans. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
