First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply russia air carrier, europe reaction
28192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/20/16 , edited 10/20/16

Amyas_Leigh wrote:
Haven't the russkies been upkeeping their nuclear arsenal better than us?

That's whats important, not carriers that can be taken out by a single torpedo from a submarine.


Given the amount of nuclear power involved it doesn't much matter how many times over each side could destroy the other. A nuclear launch is just a no win scenario. Which is the important part.

But the power projection of a carrier group is immense and practically applicable.

35872 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Georgia, USA
Online
Posted 10/20/16

runec wrote:

A nuclear launch is just a no win scenario.


Not necessarily. Real life isn't Fallout.
28192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/20/16

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


runec wrote:

A nuclear launch is just a no win scenario.


Not necessarily. Real life isn't Fallout.


I don't mean in a nuclear apocalypse sense I mean in a first strike sense. Launching a nuke means getting nuked. It just isn't possible to eliminate the other sides launching capabilities in a single blow.
6638 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 10/20/16
Russia used to have several 'aircraft carriers' which were really more cruisers that carried a few aircraft. These ships were disposed of after the fall of the USSR being sold to China and India. Two new carriers were planned but one was still being built in the Ukraine when the USSR fell. The Ukraine sold the incomplete ship to China who later finished it. Even still, the remaining Russian aircraft carrier really can't be compared to the a US supercarrier. It can carry about half the aircraft complement of a US supercarrier. It would be more comparable to a US amphibious assault ship in terms of capabilities.

But any hypothetical fight with Russia would probably go nuclear at least on a tactical level really fast for several reasons. First, the Russian military for all of Putin's bluster isn't the war machine of the USSR. It is a decaying husk of its former self with a few elite and well built formations to put on a good show. These would be...well probably have already been expended in the Ukraine and Syria. Without a conventional military to rely on the Russians would be forced to fall back on their nuclear option.

Second is the aforementioned US supercarriers. Realistically attacking one would be impossible but with a few nuclear armed missiles or torpedoes a successful attack would become a possibility. As long as these supercarriers are active the US would be able to project power virtually anywhere it needed making their elimination a tactical necessity and morale booster.

Third, Putin knows he can't win a protracted war against the full strength of NATO. As mentioned, his military is all bluster. His economy can't handle a real war. So he will have to win fast or at least weaken NATO fast enough to reduce their offensive capabilities. A few nukes on Russia would hurt him less than a few nukes in the west because he has less to lose.
37283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Online
Posted 10/20/16

MidoriNoTora wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:
Their actions are very, very provocative. We have a carrier fleet in the Mediterranean, now. It's going to be very crowded there. Also, Russia has been starting a lot of wars lately, and conquering a lot of places in Georgia, Ukraine, and I think Croatia, too.


Good god!
I go offline for 24 hours and suddenly Russia has swept through eastern Europe.
So did they invade Hungary after the Ukraine or was it via Romania and Serbia?




On a serious note, you may be thinking of the Crimea.


Yes. You are right. I meant Crimea.

As for the Ukraine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine_(2014%E2%80%93present)

On the surface, Russia is calling it an "intervention." But that's just semantics. The Russians have annexed those areas that they "intervened" in.


It's not outside of the realm of the possibility that Russia might just want to take the rest of the country, after all....

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1581942/ukraine-claims-russian-invasion-possible-at-any-minute-amid-reports-moscows-troops-move-in-on-crimea/

With most of the former Warsaw Pact countries now members of NATO, and with the Ukraine making noises that it wanted to join NATO, too, Russia struck. To capture a couple of countries that it saw as threats, if they joined NATO.

However, if Russia captures the rest of the Ukraine, then it's going to be bordered right up against NATO allied countries. We'll have Cold War part 2 - if we're lucky. And if not, the beginnings of World War III
Posted 10/21/16

MidoriNoTora wrote:


RaisedInACult wrote:

the same crimea that voted to rejoin russia, just to the southeast of the 2 other sections that wanted absolutely nothing to do with kiev or the EU and wanting their own autonomy? where kiev sent soldiers and tanks in, because the counties did not want to participate in their antics? no you cant secede, lol where have we seen that before? you cant secede, its illegal! lmao and those rules, secession IS rejecting that framework of rules.




A vote to secede and join a foreign country generally holds more weight when you are not currently occupied by the army of the country you are being asked to join. Would the people have voted the same way without Russian troops in the street? It is now impossible to say.



Stevasopol was *always* off the table. Always. That's #1 to understand. So crabbing about russian troops in the streets of stevasopol where the base is, which has, was, and always will be agreed is Russia's, they are not letting that port go no matter how much the globalists try to wrest it from them.

Funny how elections are suspicious in our "enemies" territories and a shining example of how everything should operate in the USA, and let's hush about them committing voter and electoral fraud every election since the civil rights movement.

The vote was overwhelming across pretty much all of Crimea, even bigger than those polls that happen to not get manipulated by the electoral fraudsters. (I know polls dont mean jack, but if you're going to steal an election where you know you're behind by 20% or more all day long, you've gotta play a long game to set that narrative up, as the media has been showing...)
11696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 10/21/16

RaisedInACult wrote:

Stevasopol was *always* off the table. Always. That's #1 to understand. So crabbing about russian troops in the streets of stevasopol where the base is, which has, was, and always will be agreed is Russia's, they are not letting that port go no matter how much the globalists try to wrest it from them.

Funny how elections are suspicious in our "enemies" territories and a shining example of how everything should operate in the USA, and let's hush about them committing voter and electoral fraud every election since the civil rights movement.


Erm... should I say "hanging chads"?

I don't know what you are used to in your own country but here in the UK we generally pay attention to what is happening in the world, whether that is to our east or our west. We also don't limit our criticism to those we are unfriendly with, we just try to phrase ourselves with a tad more tact and diplomacy.

I understand Russia's actions in Crimea but understanding doesn't automatically result in agreement. Any vote undertaken while under duress from a foreign power should be viewed with suspicion.
Posted 10/21/16
I tend to pay more attention to what else is going on around the world than most americans, I can tell you that much. The whole under duress thing was straight from MSM press to propagandize the people against russia, just like they tried pinning the shootdown of mh17 on russia too. the bankers need that pipeline through syria.
11696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 10/21/16
Okay...
I'll let you get back to your conspiracy theories.
Posted 10/21/16 , edited 10/21/16
hahaha, so you believe obama's crayon drawing instead of the russian satellite data that showed the flight paths? the ukrainian army shot it down, dude. and the 20 tons of gold they looted out of the ukranian central bank was part of the repatriated gold that went to the dutch, for their cooperation in the matter.

or the fact that the damage was bullets and not the shrapnel found in a buk missile?

nah, you just watched the news to see what they said, you didnt see the news about the eyewitnesses on the ground talking about how the bodies were already cold! you didnt go see the multi directional holes from the inside and outside, proving the ukranian migs followed that thing shooting at it, and wasnt just a single burst of crap like you'd bet from a buk.

and let's forget about the total complete lack of vapor trail from a missile getting shot, proving no missile was shot at them

MSM home of the government approved "curated" news

see, you dont really have a leg to stand on once we start getting down to details on these things if you believe the MSM.
11696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 10/21/16

RaisedInACult wrote:

hahaha, so you believe obama's crayon drawing instead of the russian satellite data that showed the flight paths? the ukrainian army shot it down, dude. and the 20 tons of gold they looted out of the ukranian central bank was part of the repatriated gold that went to the dutch, for their cooperation in the matter.

or the fact that the damage was bullets and not the shrapnel found in a buk missile?

nah, you just watched the news to see what they said, you didnt see the news about the eyewitnesses on the ground talking about how the bodies were already cold! you didnt go see the multi directional holes from the inside and outside, proving the ukranian migs followed that thing shooting at it, and wasnt just a single burst of crap like you'd bet from a buk.

and let's forget about the total complete lack of vapor trail from a missile getting shot, proving no missile was shot at them

MSM home of the government approved "curated" news

see, you dont really have a leg to stand on once we start getting down to details on these things if you believe the MSM.


Seriously, what part of "in the UK" did you not understand in my earlier reply? Why on earth are you assuming that I take the word of any foreign political leader at face value? I don't even offer that courtesy to my own politicians.

As I said, generally in the UK we pay attention to the world around us and many of us are aware enough to draw our own conclusions about the world. That awareness is useful in this context for me to tell that there is no further point in discussion. You believe in your conspiracy theories enough that nothing I say could change your mind and you are too focused on your own view to engage in an intelligent discussion to change my mind.
Posted 10/21/16
I dont understand what people's aversion is to actually informing oneself on a matter before forming an opinion on it.

I discussed technical matters that prove the MSM story on it is wrong. You dont want to examine technical matters and want to call me a conspiracy theorist. Well, ok, you can ad hominem and leave a debate but it doesnt even come close to making you look right.
11696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 10/21/16 , edited 10/21/16

RaisedInACult wrote:

I dont understand what people's aversion is to actually informing oneself on a matter before forming an opinion on it.

I discussed technical matters that prove the MSM story on it is wrong. You dont want to examine technical matters and want to call me a conspiracy theorist. Well, ok, you can ad hominem and leave a debate but it doesnt even come close to making you look right.


I am assuming that MSM stands for main stream media (unless you are making some weird connection to methylsulfonylmethane, which I don't have any hope of understanding).

If so, that is the core of the problem right there. You have written off the media as providing a single homogonous version of "the truth"(tm). In reality media organisations are pandering to various biases as a reflection of their owners, their sponsors and the customers who drive their ratings or sales.

No source is right 100% of the time but neither are they wrong 100% of the time. Even joke stories provide an insight into the minds of the people who made them. You just need to employ a bit of effort to sift the fact from the fiction and never take what you are told at face value.

Sourcing your own technical details or witnesses is interesting but you are playing into the hands of other people and organisations who have their own biases. If you employ the same critical thinking to these sources that you do to others then you should be fine.

However your automatic rejection of a whole swathe of sources implies a bit of lazy thinking and, if you aren't being objective about some sources, there is no way I can trust that you are being objective about others. Insisting there is a media conspiracy without employing critical thinking is why there is no point in discussing this further.
Posted 10/21/16 , edited 10/21/16

MidoriNoTora wrote:


RaisedInACult wrote:

I dont understand what people's aversion is to actually informing oneself on a matter before forming an opinion on it.

I discussed technical matters that prove the MSM story on it is wrong. You dont want to examine technical matters and want to call me a conspiracy theorist. Well, ok, you can ad hominem and leave a debate but it doesnt even come close to making you look right.


I am assuming that MSM stands for main stream media (unless you are making some weird connection to methylsulfonylmethane, which I don't have any hope of understanding).

If so, that is the core of the problem right there. You have written off the media as providing a single homogonous version of "the truth"(tm). In reality media organisations are pandering to various biases as a reflection of their owners, their sponsors and the customers who drive their ratings or sales.

No source is right 100% of the time but neither are they wrong 100% of the time. Even joke stories provide an insight into the minds of the people who made them. You just need to employ a bit of effort to sift the fact from the fiction and never take what you are told at face value.

Sourcing your own technical details or witnesses is interesting but you are playing into the hands of other people and organisations who have their own biases. If you employ the same critical thinking to these sources that you do to others then you should be fine.

However your automatic rejection of a whole swathe of sources implies a bit of lazy thinking and, if you aren't being objective about some sources, there is no way I can trust that you are being objective about others. Insisting there is a media conspiracy without employing critical thinking is why there is no point in discussing this further.


Go look up the web of who owns what in media companies and get back to me when you see that there used to be 220+ before 2000 and now there's about a half dozen that own all the major outlets. And I guess if you refuse to believe that, no wonder some things arent making sense to you and you're assuming there's not one underlying homogeneous current underneath all the big ones.

When a lie needs to be told, they are all on board.

People are still wondering where MH370 went, even though Rolls Royce has a direct satellite telemetry feed that would have pointed where it went.

The "suicide pilot" could in no way shape or form done that, and the training videos for the cabin lockout procedure completely contradict the stories they told about that lufthansa flight.

So are you going to call me a conspiracy theorist for pointing out those facts? I dont just say "hey this story sounds bogus, I wont believe it".....I go and dig and do research and look for key items like this that prove one way or another whether or not there is a true hole in an officially sanctioned report.

When known facts disagree with the story being presented, there's a problem. Facts you know that you cant really get around, say for example the charlie hebdo policeman that was supposedly shot in the head by an AK 47, we saw video of it, the government and media all reported that this policeman was shot in the head, yet watching the video of it, it is clear that not only is he not shot in the head, but a cardboard blank bounces of f the sidewalk.

What do you do when you see things like that? Avert your eyes, and say no the news wouldnt, couldnt possibly lie to me?!?

No automatic rejections. Only an automatic rejection once there is evidence that shows the story cannot possibly be true.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.