backtop


Print 93 comment(s) - last by James Wood Car.. on Apr 5 at 9:20 PM


A Project 949 Granit/Oscar I Project 949A Antey/Oscar II Cruise Missile Attack Submarine (Nuclear Powered) is pictured here. The U.S. constructed several nuclear-powered cruise missile subs for tactical nuclear strikes, during the Cold War. However, it has since retrofitted all of them, removing their nuclear-tipped missiles. Now, an increasingly aggressive Russia has leaked plans of building 6 such subs.  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Russia announces plans to expand its warfare platform

DailyTech a couple of years back covered Russia's campaign to build "the father of all bombs" -- the largest traditional bomb to date.  Russia has also been testing new nuclear weapons, as well.

Now Russia has piqued the interest of the military world with the announcement of new plans for another significant expansion of its nuclear warfare efforts.  A source in the Russian Defense Ministry told the Itar-Tass news agency announced that Russia is working on at least six nuclear-powered submarines with long-range cruise missiles for its navy. 

Russia has built ballistics submarines capable of delivering a high-capacity nuclear strike in the past.  However, it previously did not have any nuclear-equipped cruise missile subs that were publicly known of -- though it did have a few traditional cruise missile subs. 

While Russia had as many as 100+ ballistic subs at its Cold War peak, these subs were a blunt instrument, not well-suited for delivering smaller tactical strikes.  The new subs will be designed to potentially carry low-capacity tactical warheads -- the kind well suited for such strikes.

The source describes, "These supersonic, highly maneuvering missiles are designed for strikes on aircraft carriers of the enemy if the latter poses a direct threat to Russia's security.  The missiles can be launched at the most important coastal facilities."

The new subs are schedule to be completed in 2011.  The Sevmash shipyard is constructing the Severodvinsk-class submarines, according to Global Security's website.  The Russian source insists that Russia is playing by the rules when it comes to the new nuclear subs.  They state, "Despite the construction of a new nuclear submarine with new missiles, Russia intends to observe firmly international arms control agreements on equal terms with other countries."

The U.S. has several nuclear-powered cruise missile subs, the first of which launched in 1964.  These special cruise missile subs were equipped with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, though they have since been retrofitted, removing nuclear armaments.  The U.S. currently has no nuclear-tipped cruise missile subs, as it is considered in violation of international treaties to equip Tomahawk cruise missiles with nuclear payloads. 

First Deputy Chief of the Navy's General Staff, Vice-Admiral Oleg Burtsev confirmed to Itar-Tass that Russia was financing the construction of new cruise-missile subs.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Now THIS is some hardcore FUD
By Hieyeck on 3/31/2009 8:46:38 AM , Rating: 4
Quite possibly the most fear-mongering title ever posted on DT.

quote:
The missiles can potentially carry low-capacity tactical warheads, the news agency reported Friday.
quote:
The source added, "Despite the construction of a new nuclear submarine with new missiles, Russia intends to observe firmly international arms control agreements on equal terms with other countries."
Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/03/28/ru...

Oh well, no surprise, just Mick pulling another Mickism.




RE: Now THIS is some hardcore FUD
By porkpie on 3/31/2009 9:14:17 AM , Rating: 2
I've been more critical of Mick than most anyone, but I really don't see what your problem is here.


RE: Now THIS is some hardcore FUD
By Hieyeck on 3/31/2009 9:25:08 AM , Rating: 5
Clever. Mick just changed the title on me.

It USED to read: Russia building up it's nuclear arsenal with six subs.


RE: Now THIS is some hardcore FUD
By Hieyeck on 3/31/2009 9:52:04 AM , Rating: 2
Bloody... How come they get to edit entire articles without tracking the changes or posting retractions and I can't even add one word and a link... anyways: http://yfrog.com/0f71978372j


RE: Now THIS is some hardcore FUD
By phxfreddy on 3/31/2009 3:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
To the tune of Bing Crosby Swinging on a Star

Would you like to swing on a star
Carry moonbeams home in a jar
And be better off than you are
Or would you rather be in a sub that's burst?

Things could take a turn for the worst
You could be sailing on the Kursk
The Kursk is an sub with long craggy shards
And now it sits in the salvage yard

...etc etc etc

More powers to 'em if they want to sail them!


RE: Now THIS is some hardcore FUD
By Spinne on 3/31/2009 9:29:29 AM , Rating: 5
Well, it's fun, isn't it? For example, here's another Mickism -
"Russia has also been testing new nuclear weapons, as well."
If you follow the link, it refers to a missile test, not an actual weapons test which is a very very different affair, even if its underground. The last actual weapons tests were the Korean tests a few years ago. Mick is counting on the fact that most people won't bother clicking on the link, but will read his sensationalism and take it seriously. Either that or the poor fellow genuinely does not understand that it is possible and routine to test a missile with no warhead.


RE: Now THIS is some hardcore FUD
By porkpie on 3/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: Now THIS is some hardcore FUD
By whiskerwill on 3/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: Now THIS is some hardcore FUD
By Spinne on 3/31/2009 6:28:44 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite true as far as treaties go. As per international treaties, testing above ground is banned while testing underground is frowned upon. Testing a delivery system is not covered by these treaties. Exporting the delivery system, sensitive components or technology of is banned by other treaties. Since things are structured in this manner internationally, it is appropriate to discuss things in the same manner on this forum. We are not, after all, experts in the field of international treaty law. To equate the test of a single component of a complex delivery system (warheads, missile, silo, road-mobile silo, command & control etc...) is incorrect unless you're Mick!
Mick did not imply that the test was that of a nuclear delivery system, he implied that it was a nuclear test. Two very very different things.


RE: Now THIS is some hardcore FUD
By porkpie on 4/1/2009 1:23:06 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure what you're talking about here. Treaties have banned or limited nuclear delivery systems just as they have types of nuclear tests. According to START I, a missile designed to carry nuclear warheads is a nuclear missile, and treated differently than your ordinary missile.


By SiliconDoc on 4/1/2009 5:31:04 AM , Rating: 1
Of course, but the crybaby libtards think that a nuke exploding can kill everyone, so they have effectively banned that until the powers that be can't stand it anymore and nuke a couple million libtards, with the delivery system they tested... that the libs cried didn't really matter - before they reached 3 million degrees fahrenheit, and realized, yeah, it really doesn't matter, and claimed they were right anyway.
LOL
Libs, the nutty little whiny red commie noobs that never got spanked because it's a crime against humanity. rofl
The O wants unilateral nuke disarmament just like weak Jimmah the crushed and humiliated - seen the u noob vid yet ? lol It's stagflation time soon and the misery index is rising - have fun and wear a sweater !


RE: Now THIS is some hardcore FUD
By energy1man on 4/1/2009 7:55:52 AM , Rating: 2
Defintely sensationalism.

I followed a few links too. From what I can tell from the other articles, these subs will use nuclear propulsion and be equipped with conventional weapons. This is nothing new, the benefits of nuclear propulsion, espicially for subs, is desirable and commonplace. Yes the missiles "may" hypothetically be replaced with nuclear tipped ones, but that is the same for most any weapons system for any country.

Also while the article title may have been changed, the link to the article has not, it still refers to a nuclear arsenal buildup. Nuclear propulsion does not equal nuclear arsenal.

Oh, and during his rewrite of these other articles he got the timeframe messed up. The first sub is supposed to be completed in 2011. The other 5 will be completed at later dates, out to 2017. Accuracy not needed apparently.


By energy1man on 4/1/2009 8:22:47 AM , Rating: 2
Well the link now matches the title, it now says navy arsenal, instead of nuclear arsenal. That update did not take long.


RE: Now THIS is some hardcore FUD
By Shadowself on 3/31/2009 9:45:34 AM , Rating: 3
I am much, much more worried about the storage site with nuclear subs that are leaking. That is a much greater hazard than them creating new subs.


RE: Now THIS is some hardcore FUD
By whiskerwill on 3/31/2009 9:51:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is a much greater hazard

Maybe if you're a fish swimming in the immediate area. Otherwise, its no risk at all. Do you have any idea just how much water is in the ocean?


RE: Now THIS is some hardcore FUD
By skipulrich on 3/31/2009 5:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
After their usable life, subs do need to be dismantled. Submarine fission reactors are then buried on land.
I believe the USA does that on the west coast somewhere (anyone DT readers know?) I think only Russia has intentionally scuttled a nuke sub at sea.


RE: Now THIS is some hardcore FUD
By jabber on 4/5/2009 11:29:50 AM , Rating: 2
Subs dont get dismantled in Russia. Too expensive. Easier to let them rot in a Siberian dock and forget about them.

I think the K19 is still sitting there somewhere.


For those who aren't paying attention...
By Beenthere on 3/31/2009 10:41:36 AM , Rating: 2
Nice to see that Russian oil money going to good use on nuclear subs or not. Russia fully intends to rule the world as soon as possible. They are supplying N. Korea, China, Iran and others to undermine and attack the U.S. in hopes of gaining world power.




By phez on 3/31/2009 1:02:38 PM , Rating: 1
LOL :D


RE: For those who aren't paying attention...
By Noya on 4/1/2009 1:35:29 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Russia fully intends to rule the world as soon as possible. They are supplying N. Korea, China, Iran and others to undermine and attack the U.S. in hopes of gaining world power.


Are you 10 years old?

No nation with nukes is going to purposely attack another nation with nukes (no less the US, who arguably has the most advanced nuclear delivery systems on the planet).

It's suicide.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/1/2009 6:50:54 AM , Rating: 1
Current US Politicians do not have the balls to retaliate in a nuclear fashion.


RE: For those who aren't paying attention...
By porkpie on 4/1/2009 9:29:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No nation with nukes is going to purposely attack another nation with nukes
Funny but the Soviets and China both have attacked US forces on several occasions. It wasn't "suicide" because they knew the US wouldn't retaliate with nuclear weapons.

Your simplistic worldview needs some revisions.


RE: For those who aren't paying attention...
By energy1man on 4/1/2009 10:38:29 AM , Rating: 3
I think you are misintepreting his comment. He is saying no nation will use nuclear weapons againest another nation that has nuclear weapons.


RE: For those who aren't paying attention...
By porkpie on 4/1/09, Rating: 0
By James Wood Carter on 4/5/2009 9:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
I seriously don't think China will invade another country, you have to have a cold war mentality to think like that. What we see is China investing heavily in its own economy. China has already established a strong foot hold in other countries economies especially the US economy, any actions that result in instability is not welcomed because it undermines the economic achievements. China is a country that aspires for improved living standards and establishing itself as a major nation comparable to the US. (though in my opionion still has a long way to go)If you think otherwise ... only time will tell.


A bit misleading
By Kyberesh on 3/31/2009 9:19:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The U.S. has several nuclear-equipped cruise missile subs, though some have been retrofitted, removing nuclear armaments.

This isn't true. The SSGN is a nuclear-powered sub with Tomahawks for weapons. Tomahawks by the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty cannot carry nuclear weapons. I would change the words to specify "nuclear-powered" instead of "nuclear-equipped"




RE: A bit misleading
By Kyberesh on 3/31/2009 9:21:06 AM , Rating: 2
By SSGN I mean the currently deployed US Ohio class SSGN.


RE: A bit misleading
By ksherman on 3/31/2009 9:58:26 AM , Rating: 2
The US also has nuclear-powered subs with nuclear missiles. Rationale? Because when Russia would nuke the US and attempt to destroy their ability to retaliate, there would always be some super quiet subs around with a small arsenal, to borrow a line from the A-AR, Give [Them] Hell.


RE: A bit misleading
By Jalek on 4/1/2009 12:53:12 AM , Rating: 2
Those're ballistic missiles on the non-converted Ohio class boats though. None of the others can carry nuclear warheads for their tactical missiles.

The Russians still have their Typhoon's, Delta's, and the first Borei class is awaiting sea trials, so they have no lack of ballistic missile submarines.


Completed in 2011?
By Woobagong on 3/31/2009 9:49:32 AM , Rating: 2
Lets just hope it's not October 2011.

*Ping?*
*Ping!*




Another wolf joins the pack
By Ozziedogg on 3/31/2009 4:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
I must confess I'd love to see a (test) launch of a missile out of a sub in real life, would be a sight indeed.
Now if the British and the French subs can avoid smashing into the Russians, we'll all be fine.




heads up?
By tfk11 on 3/31/2009 6:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
Can we get the author's name for each article posted on the front page please.




Dare I say it?
By dflynchimp on 3/31/2009 7:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
In mother Russia, you don't build sub...




Wow
By ablecluster on 4/1/2009 9:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
Dude that is downright scary! No doubt!

RT
http://www.anonymity.us.tc




Enemy?
By Ammohunt on 3/31/09, Rating: -1
RE: Enemy?
By Murloc on 3/31/2009 3:21:48 PM , Rating: 2
ou just suppose it's the US, but it's the US that is threating russia as his enemy.


RE: Enemy?
By Jalek on 3/31/2009 9:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ou just suppose it's the US, but it's the US that is threating russia as his enemy.


Those bombers flying over Alaska and through Canadian airspace are friendly I'm sure.

Unfortunate that this article isn't correct, the TLAM-N always seemed like a good weapon until Bush pulled all tacticals in 1991.


RE: Enemy?
By SiliconDoc on 4/1/2009 6:16:03 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, let me help you young mudcrawler.
Libbing (or living, rather not living, or living on very briefly before a painful violent death) under a totalitarian communist crimelord regime with gulags plenty much handier than a loaf of bread and a cup of coffee should seem threatening even to the most limousined lib imaginable. We're talking $25USD EQUIVALENT for one cup of black nasty joe (no that wasn't a racist soldier remark you idiot lib - joe is java) in the soviet central planner capital... and likely by how you'd look WITH YOUR WESTERN LIB LIPS DROOLING IN AWESTRUCK HORROR (ready no doubt to scream "what a rip-off!", they wouldn't let you in the people's door - comrade proletariat.) Then you'd notice the cockroach crawling up your leg and the rat shuffling by on the broken walk, and you'd unconsciously start peeing yourself before your mind could figure out what was going on.
So, uhh... please, for the sake of - modernity - GET A CLUE !


RE: Enemy?
By grath on 3/31/2009 6:59:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If Russia wants to be our enemy i say we nuke them flat now while we can.


They dont want to be our enemy, they just want a good slice of the energy resources under the melting arctic ice cap. If it comes down to a question of perceived naval superiority, or if not superiority at least parity, they seek to put themselves in a position less vulnerable to bullying by other powers. It strengthens their bargaining position, and I think thats a good thing for everybody. If such bullying tactics are seen as a viable option, they are more likely to be used, which would be an extremely dangerous thing to do. Taking such an option off the table, not just for us but for anybody who wants a piece of the arctic sea, might lead to a more equitable and peaceful allocation of the resources up there. Deterrence is a strategy designed to keep the peace, not to make war. Nuclear deterrence has arguably been proven to work, we havent had a nuclear exchange yet, so the same theory may apply to the economics of theoretical Cold War 2.0 which will be about energy and development rather than idealogy and military prowess.

And just because we have the most carriers doesnt automatically make us the enemy, although that is already inherently implied in any case. Plenty of others have smaller but capable navies that could pose a tactical threat to Russian interests, and indeed that threat may be far more likely to come from someone other than the US.


RE: Enemy?
By BZDTemp on 4/1/2009 5:10:02 AM , Rating: 2
I am sure that in some Russian minds there is a scenario where we(Denmark) block Russian traffic in and out of the Baltic. Perhaps they imagine that they bully us so they get the Arctic and we then retaliate by doing a blockade.

Already it is not like Russia are big fan of us since we did a lot to help some of the ex-USSR republics get close to the EU.


Whats the point?
By Nyamekye on 3/31/09, Rating: -1
RE: Whats the point?
By rudy on 3/31/2009 9:51:33 AM , Rating: 2
Most probably because China would be in the market to buy now.


RE: Whats the point?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/31/2009 11:03:00 AM , Rating: 3
Errr, buy one??? No, China likes to take other people ideas and make it themselves. They also like to make it cheaper then they turn around and sell it to who ever will buy it. They have to be the masters of reverse engineering.


RE: Whats the point?
By rudy on 3/31/2009 11:54:56 AM , Rating: 3
That assumes that they can make it.

And in order to copy it they need to get one or steal the information. And when they steal the information they pay people to steal it. So if the Russians are willing to sell the hardware or the plans and service why would the Chinese not just buy it from them? In the past Russia has been a major arms dealer no reason to see that change.


RE: Whats the point?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/31/2009 12:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
or you can have a former President of the USA sell plans to China while he was still in office.
If you remember old Billy sold a bunch of things to China, one I know was a jet fighter design that we were not going to use, I don't know the others. Maybe one was a nuke sub???

The Chinese have more man power then Russia. In the past they might not have had the buildings or people educated to the right level to produce some of these weapons. Once they do, you better believe they are going to make it themselves. If for no other reason but help strengthen their economy (more jobs for their people). Then will come the scare question, will they stock pile the weapons, use the weapons, or sell the weapons to anyone with the money?


RE: Whats the point?
By whiskerwill on 3/31/2009 1:54:12 PM , Rating: 3
China has apparently developed a missile that will allow them to take out US aircraft carriers from 2000 km away, in 12 minutes or less:

https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon...

And Pres. Nobama is cancelling the one weapon that might be able to block it.


RE: Whats the point?
By SiliconDoc on 4/1/2009 5:45:48 AM , Rating: 1
That's because you can always count on 0 comrades being useful idiots - oh, and foreigners, too, and illegal besides.
What a doof.


RE: Whats the point?
By cnar77 on 4/1/2009 12:28:15 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
In the past Russia has been a major arms dealer no reason to see that change.


I find this quite interesting especially since Russia like the US has competed for the sale of weapons. Military agencies find the Russian weapons more affordable but not as good as the US weapons. The US also has a large weapons export industry much larger than Russia. One must recognize that Russia isn't the only country that produces AK-47s etc. Others such as China have been doing this for decades.

See http://www.fas.org/asmp/fast_facts.htm

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Most Americans do not even know what leaves the US including land mines. The US sells more land mines externally than any other country. The US has also refused to sign on (along with Cuba) to ban land mine use. Every other country has signed on, however sales of land mines is big business as many conflicts around the world exist.

It's a bad practise to make claims about other nations based on what you think you know. Always remember to never judge others unless you expect someone to judge you.


RE: Whats the point?
By crleap on 4/1/2009 2:27:21 AM , Rating: 2
let's hope the chinese imitation nuke is better than the chinese imitation everything else. cuz if not we're in trouble.


RE: Whats the point?
By PlasmaBomb on 3/31/2009 9:57:12 AM , Rating: 3
At least we won't have to worry about Global warming if our sticks forever change the planet :)


RE: Whats the point?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/31/2009 10:00:11 AM , Rating: 5
The point is that Russia's leader right now is a former KGB enforcer and a throwback to the old ways of the USSR. This is the only way he knows how to play it.

1. Attack and threaten neighboring countries ( Georgia )
2. Build up millitary.
3. Build up nuclear arsenal and it as blackmail to receive foreign aid, cash, and UN concessions.

God help us. We need Ronald Reagan again...


RE: Whats the point?
By TA152H on 3/31/2009 10:56:21 AM , Rating: 2
Sadly, we got someone about as masculine as his wife, and more ideologically similar to Comrade Putin.

On the plus side though, if polls show that he should say something mean to Russia, why he'll probably just get up and do it!

Good grief, we're in trouble.

Of course, we can always get the Germans riled again. You know they want to try again. Best two out of three? This time, maybe they won't have the rest of the world against them too.


RE: Whats the point?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/31/2009 2:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
If you are talking about Nancy... well you don't remember Nancy very well. The staff walked on egg shells around her. She'd rip people apart if they upset her...

So you maybe giving out more credit then you think... :)


RE: Whats the point?
By IvanAndreevich on 3/31/2009 1:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
1, 2, and 3 sounds like the United States, except in 1 you are attacking non-neighboring contries. If you think about it objectively, that is.


RE: Whats the point?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/31/2009 1:14:54 PM , Rating: 1
Objectively ?

Pretty ironic there..IVAN.


RE: Whats the point?
By SiliconDoc on 4/1/2009 6:37:21 AM , Rating: 2
BWHAHAHAHAHAAAAA...
I guess the pravda espionage training didn't quite get to the commie name change 101 class time.


RE: Whats the point?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/31/2009 2:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
No, cutting back on military and weapons does not sound like building up military and weapons. People need to stop hating or putting down the USA just because it’s popular to hate the USA. If you don’t like how things are done in or by the USA then stand up and do something and stop watching from the side lines. For decades the USA is the first to be there to help (others help too, but the USA tends to be there first). Being first has a few big down sides, easier to make mistakes and easier to ridicule. You do not have to join in on clearing the world of groups that will attack innocent people by terrorist action – like flying planes into builds with no warning. However, don’t stand in the way of others that are making the world safer for you…


RE: Whats the point?
By TA152H on 3/31/2009 11:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'm confused about his point number one, since Russia reacted to a Georgia attack, but let's talk about number three.

Since when did the U.S. request aid from other countries? It's been pretty much a one-way street, with U.S. giving financial aid to other countries, and those countries still disliking the U.S.

Russia is a perfect example. You guys took a lot of aid, but were so corrupt it didn't get where it needed to. Now you're enemies again? Seems like a bit of ingratitude.

The whole Russia thing seems to me like a child beating his chest. Face it, you're not a super power. You can have tantrums, beat up on half rate countries, and build bombs, but at the end of the day, you don't have the GDP to compete with the United States. In a war, you'd be overrun in two weeks. You have inferior equipment, inferior technology, and widespread corruption.

So my question, Comrade Ivan, is, why even bother? You don't have to compete, and I don't see the benefit of it to Russia. You make enemies not only with the United States, but Western Europe isn't too crazy about Russia (were they ever?). That overreaction in Georgia certainly didn't help relations with Ukraine, and threatening to invade Poland if they installed the U.S. missile shield was laughable. You guys do realize Poland has a treaty with the U.S., right? You do realize what would happen if the U.S. went to war with Russia, right? You'd be overrun and occupied in no time at all, or you'd use nukes and cease to exist. Neither is plausible, so it's a stupid bluff, from a pathetic leader who sounds childish and totally out of touch with the reality of the present. Gorbachev was right, the transition to democracy needed more time, but whatever anger you have towards the U.S. is misguided. You guys decided to go with Yeltsin and a clean break, it wasn't the U.S.. And if you're not a super power anymore (you always were the second one anyway, with half the economy of the U.S.), it's because of your own policies, and the failure of your leadership to realize you couldn't outspend a country with twice the production.

Deal with it. Russia doesn't have to be an enemy of the west, but if it does, it will not be a productive policy for either side. Ego isn't a good basis for foreign policy. Accept your reality, and make the best of it.


RE: Whats the point?
By Captin Crunch on 4/1/2009 5:20:22 AM , Rating: 2
So Team-America will overrun Russia in two week!? I think your overestimating the size and power of the current US army. look at how well Vietnam went, or how well things are going in Afghanistan. The US army just isn't the industrial might of WWII any more.

Russia is flexing it's Military muscle because it doesn't like the US holding it in a cage of missile silos. The invasion of Georgia was "clever" strategically speaking, as the US were already way too stretched to really do anything about it. Russia stamps it's foot, to remind eastern Europe it is the alpha male.

If hypothetically US & Russia go to war, it would likely involve several other countries, with china as a key player. but it would be one messed up world!!

Reagan wont save us... Chuck Norris will


RE: Whats the point?
By TA152H on 4/1/2009 11:14:45 AM , Rating: 2
I'm glad you are just a cereal box captain, since you clearly don't have much military history knowledge.

The issues of Afghanistan and Vietnam were not related to a war between competing armies, they were guerilla wars, which are always a pain in the backside. So, you're really talking about the occupation of a country at that point, not the conquest of it.

Conquering Russia would be easy, the occupation may or may not prove difficult.

The Chinese have no affection for the Russians, and claim some of their territory. Besides, since when are Chinese good fighters? The Japanese, with a much smaller population, and engaged mainly with the western allies beat the crap out of them in WW II. I'll take the Germans and the Japanese instead, any day of the week, even if the Chinese were so silly to join the Russians (which I very much doubt). Considering their issues with Tibet, and India, I don't think they'd be in such a rush.

Also, we'd have the English, who are historically good fighters, and the French, who make really attractive uniforms, and the Italians. You might doubt the military value of the French and Italians, but consider that combined they would create logistical nightmares for their captors, and clog up the PoW camps of the Russians, who can barely feed themselves.

Try not to confuse guerrilla warfare with a war between two armies. The latter the U.S. has demolished any opponent quickly and easily. The former is always a problem, for any army, whether it be the German, the Soviet, or the American.

One last thing, the U.S. had made it perfectly clear to Georgia before they attacked their runaway areas that they would not support them in a war against Russia. Russia knew this, of course, and realized it was risk free. How could the U.S. look anything but bad fighting a war for a country that just attacked? It was a no-win situation for the U.S..


RE: Whats the point?
By Nfarce on 4/1/2009 11:19:41 AM , Rating: 1
Ah, you beat me to it TA!


RE: Whats the point?
By porkpie on 4/1/2009 2:06:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Besides, since when are Chinese good fighters? The Japanese, with a much smaller population, and engaged mainly with the western allies beat the crap out of them in WW II.
Wow, just wow. At the time, Japan's military technology was far above China's, China was engaged in a crippling civil war, and almost all of Japan's "beating the crap" out of China occurred BEFORE Japan got engaged with the US or any other major power.

quote:
Conquering Russia would be easy
Lol, this is even worse than the last.


RE: Whats the point?
By Nfarce on 4/1/2009 11:17:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
look at how well Vietnam went, or how well things are going in Afghanistan. The US army just isn't the industrial might of WWII any more.


I get so tired of hearing about Vietnam and the US losing it. We never intended to go in in the first place. If you remember, it was the French that started that entire issue via the Indochina war. We initially went in only as "advisers" to South Vietnam. Then after the NVA escalated things, US politicians started doing what they do the worst, and that's tell generals how to run a war. It was never meant to be an all out war, and the only way we brought the NVA to the Paris Peace table was by bombing the hell out of them via Operation Linebacker. As any war historian knows (and has written about), Vietnam was poorly planned and poorly executed. As my F-4 pilot dad who flew combat missions over there, you can't get a little bit pregnant in war - you either fight or you don't. We withdrew from Vietnam through peace talks. We did NOT lose it.

Regarding Afghanistan (and Iraq for that matter), there are a few similarities with Vietam. One of the most prevalent is an enemy that blends in with society and cowardly hides behind innocent civilians. We haven't had a real enemy face to face to fight large scale since Korea. The US "industrial might" isn't what it used to be because the enemy isn't what it used to be.


RE: Whats the point?
By BZDTemp on 3/31/2009 2:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
Tell me about it.

More and more our air force have to intercept Russian Bear bombers and sometime even Black jacks which comes close to our Danish air space. It happened yesterday and a week ago our F-16s did it on the behalf of Iceland (They do not have their own air force so other NATO nations take turn helping out).

I am pretty sure the Russians have mainly two thing on the agenda. Firstly the try to keep the old USSR states from turning to the west eg. joining NATO/EU or just resist Russian control. Secondly they want to make sure that the Arctic become their turf and not other nations (like for example ours).

I wonder how the Russians will pay for all the new toys. The low oil & gas prices are really hurting them since they have little else anyone wants.


RE: Whats the point?
By MrJim on 4/1/2009 7:48:54 AM , Rating: 2
Well, we know now with hindsight that Georgia fired first. But Russia has never been good with PR.


RE: Whats the point?
By whiskerwill on 3/31/2009 10:16:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mean our sticks have gotten so big that swinging them will forever change the planet.
The old nuclear winter fraud has been discredited a long time. A major nuclear war would obviously be a Very Bad Thing. But change the planet forever? Not even close.


RE: Whats the point?
By Sanity on 3/31/2009 11:38:05 AM , Rating: 2
Oh I agree, he's totally off base. What's a couple of hundred years compared to forever? Not close, that's for sure.


RE: Whats the point?
By FaaR on 4/1/2009 1:14:12 AM , Rating: 2
Depends on how you define 'changing the planet forever' I suppose; I guess most lifeforms wouldn't care much if human civilization is virtually wiped out, which is what would happen from any major exchange of nuclear warheads (as would surely be the case if any of the major nuclear powers are attacked).

All major urban areas would be smashed to radioactive rubble, factories, mines, dams, TV and radio transmitters. Water and sanitation systems, powerplants and electric distribution grids... All major infrastructure blown to bits. Hundreds of millions would die within hours of the first attack.

Same with farmland, deliberately targetted for maximum destruction. Even if there's no such thing as nuclear winter (big assumption), how would we feed ourselves with no food processing industry, distribution, or even means of production? Mass starvation would follow, where countless millions more would perish.

Our civilised, industrialised society would cease to exist overnight. Pretty major change for this planet, no? At least from a human point of view. :P


RE: Whats the point?
By AntiM on 3/31/2009 10:39:39 AM , Rating: 5
I agree. Half of them are going to wind up on the bottom of the sea floor after some type of collision or malfunction anyway. Just what we need, another wrecked Russian sub leaking radioactivity in our oceans.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/08/world/sunken-sov...


RE: Whats the point?
By whiskerwill on 3/31/2009 10:44:07 AM , Rating: 3
OMG, dat evil RADIMACTICIVITY is leakin!

Have any idea how much uranium is found naturally in seawater? Even the NYT couldn't find anyone who would call this any sort of ecological disaster.


RE: Whats the point?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/31/2009 11:07:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Have any idea how much uranium is found naturally in seawater? Even the NYT couldn't find anyone who would call this any sort of ecological disaster.


Ask anyone on Daily Tech, they will tell you Reclaimer is certainly NO environmentalist.

However Russia has a terrible track record when it comes to handling nuclear material. And just because it might not be a 'disaster' to have nuclear subs sitting on the ocean floor leaking, doesn't mean it's a particularly good way to store said submarines.


RE: Whats the point?
By nct on 3/31/2009 12:56:19 PM , Rating: 5
I am extremely disappointed that after over a half century of the nuclear age, there have been no reports to date of a nuclear distaster spawning a giant, mutant, Godzilla-sytle monster. I think a sunken nuclear submarine leaking radiation into the deep sea gives me the best shot at seeing such a creature in my lifetime. Therefore, I fully support the Russians and wish them the worst of luck in their endeavors.


RE: Whats the point?
By werepossum on 3/31/2009 3:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And just because it might not be a 'disaster' to have nuclear subs sitting on the ocean floor leaking, doesn't mean it's a particularly good way to store said submarines.


Assuming there's a slow leak, good current, and deep water, that's an excellent way to get rid of unwanted radioactive substances. Radioactive substances only become dangerous when concentrated, so a slow leak into the ocean can safely dissipate the concentrated radioactivity over a long period of time without noticeably raising the ocean's radioactivity. Witness the lost nukes off the USA's southern coast; they suspect the nukes have to be leaking after this long, but the area's natural radioactivity is so high that a slow leak is impossible to locate.


RE: Whats the point?
By MadMan007 on 3/31/2009 10:40:52 AM , Rating: 2
These are (possibly) tactical nukes which are different from 'city-buster' nukes. Of course attacking another nuclear-armed country with nukes would almost assuredly lead to escalation...


RE: Whats the point?
By BansheeX on 3/31/2009 10:47:19 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Nuclear weapons are pretty much unusable

They're perfectly usable... as deterrents, to both nuclear strikes and invasion. I doubt we will ever see them used again for the very reason that so many countries now have them. They effectively deter invasion by eliminating any prospect of victory for the invader, as the nukes would be used as a last resort to achieve a draw should defeat become imminent. That is something most people forget, they generally only think the MAD concept applies to nuclear strikes.
quote:
Why even build more nuclear subs?

Um, I'm guessing they're pissed about our missile shield crap.
quote:
I mean, yes I understand the point behind having the biggest stick but, I mean our sticks have gotten so big that swinging them will forever change the planet.

Sticks get bigger now because someone's got a pocket to fill. We became immune to attack from enemy countries when we got nukes post WWII. To keep the money flowing we had to dramatically change our concept of self-defense by inventing imaginary threats. First it was the commie scare, which collapsed itself, even after we wasted 50,000 men trying to contain it. Now it's scattered groups with box cutters. Meanwhile, our military is spread out everywhere but at our own borders, our intelligence agency blows, our cockpits weren't barricaded, our pilots weren't allowed guns, our CIA almost single handedly radicalized Iran in the 50s. Our government's inpetitude allows attacks that otherwise would have never been feasible and then it goes "see! a threat! If only we had invaded Iraq and Vietnam, if only we had more helicopers and F-22s and foreign bases, we could have prevented it all!"


RE: Whats the point?
By Sanity on 3/31/2009 11:34:14 AM , Rating: 2
There are a few groups on earth that would be perfectly happy using nuclear weapons as weapons and not just deterrents. I just don't see Russia being one of them.


RE: Whats the point?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 3/31/2009 12:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't we invade Iraq and Viet Nam,and lost in both cases? I can't tell if that was sarcasm.


RE: Whats the point?
By Rob94hawk on 3/31/09, Rating: -1
RE: Whats the point?
By FaaR on 4/1/2009 12:44:32 AM , Rating: 3
He should defect, why?

I suppose freedom of expression and difference of opinions does not fit within your world view? I guess that must be another "libtard" idea...

I swear, the US has more in common with oppressive communist russia than most people care to admit. The idea that only one set of opinions (namely yours, in this case) may exist is as dangerous as any totalitarian mindset.


RE: Whats the point?
By SiliconDoc on 4/1/2009 5:52:37 AM , Rating: 1
You don't think much do you ? He wished such a moronic fool on the enemy, for them to deal with the bumbling idiot gilligan disaster. THAT'S why you idiot libtard #2. No worries we'll pay for his welfare.
And no, that isn't totalitarian. Totalitarian is YOU'RE DEAD, as in you only open your stupid piehole ONCE before you're snuffed.
Gosh, get a clue lib.


RE: Whats the point?
By Rob94hawk on 4/1/2009 9:12:37 AM , Rating: 1
I noticed how you ignored the facts of my argument and skipped them and moved on to my opnion.

Typical liberal trash. Can't handle the facts so lets bash someone for their opinion.


RE: Whats the point?
By porkpie on 4/1/2009 9:42:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I swear, the US has more in common with oppressive communist russia than most people care to admit...
You use the random comment of one person on a forum to generalize about the entire USA? And you wonder why we laugh at your ridicuous statements?


RE: Whats the point?
By Darkskypoet on 3/31/2009 4:38:12 PM , Rating: 1
+1; I would give you a 6 if it were possible Banshee.

Good on you!


RE: Whats the point?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/31/09, Rating: 0
RE: Whats the point?
By FaaR on 4/1/2009 12:57:41 AM , Rating: 2
You'll find the reason "liberal Antiamericanism" even exists in the first place is the rather spotty record the US has created for itself in recent history.

It has arisen from US imperialism, including the invasion of several sovereign nations where the US arguably had no right being in the first place. Vietnam for example which had the sht completely bombed and poisoned out of it, even today people are maimed and killed by unexploded munitions, and babies are born with defects due to the toxins sprayed there.

Things are worsened by the financial support (and arming) of some of the most bloodthirsty dictators this planet has ever seen on several different continents, from Augusto Pinochet in Chile to Saddam Hussein in the middle east, including a number of astoundingly violent and sadistic rulers in Africa.

It's hard to see the US as the bastion of freedom and democracy on this planet when Reagan and other presidents so happily paid hundreds of millions in aid and support to absolutely ruthless military dictatorships.

So don't go whine about "liberal Antiamericanism", please. You reap what you sow, remember that...


RE: Whats the point?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/1/2009 1:07:07 AM , Rating: 3
" US Imperialism " doesn't even exist. If we were imperialists, Canada, Mexico, and Cuba would be completely under US control. And Puerto Rico would be a state already.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you we have a perfect track record. But I get tired of seeing people like you bring up the same few mistakes, while overlooking the thousands of things good about this country and all the good things it did and continues to do for the world.

quote:
It's hard to see the US as the bastion of freedom and democracy on this plane


It's hard to see because you AREN'T LOOKING !


RE: Whats the point?
By SiliconDoc on 4/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Whats the point?
By porkpie on 4/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Whats the point?
By Nfarce on 3/31/2009 6:11:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
To keep the money flowing we had to dramatically change our concept of self-defense by inventing imaginary threats. First it was the commie scare, which collapsed itself, even after we wasted 50,000 men trying to contain it. Now it's scattered groups with box cutters.


Yep, the world is just a totally safe place. never again will we have a global conflict of nations. Ever. Nations like China and Russian would never join forces and attempt to take over the world with a few sprinklings of little lapdog communist helpers like Venezuela.

In fact, why do the Westerns nations even need a military? Let's just disband NATO since it pisses off Russia, and let the UN run everything and be the World Security Force. Then we can pull out of the Middle East since our presence as infidels pisses the "box cutters" off so much. Oh, and hanging Bush & Cheney for treason would probably help the world heal too.


RE: Whats the point?
By BansheeX on 4/2/2009 4:07:23 PM , Rating: 2
Explain how China or Russia or anyone could "take over" another nuke-capable country without getting nuked in the face themselves. Seems to me like world domination is impossible. Who the hell cares about UN and NATO, they're stupid entangling alliances, I hate being associated with the BS any of our allies pull from time to time? Everyone's decision should be sovereign. I'm not sacrificing myself for Isrealis and governments I have no say or stake in, but I'll die for this country, for the safety of my family, if the threat is justified. Last time it was justified was WWII when we were directly attacked by the Axis.


RE: Whats the point?
By OoklaTheMok on 3/31/2009 11:42:16 AM , Rating: 5
Just because it is a nuclear powered sub does not mean it is a nuclear armed sub. If I read the article correctly, there is no mention of these subs being fitted with nuclear armaments, only conventional warhead cruise missiles.


RE: Whats the point?
By Maharajamd on 3/31/2009 2:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hunter: In my humble opinion, in the nuclear world, the true enemy is war itself.


RE: Whats the point?
By bobny1 on 3/31/2009 6:54:16 PM , Rating: 3
Lets flatten Rusia, North korea, Iran and Chavez. Lets save China for later!. We'll call it "the stinkylous package"..lol


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki