PDA

View Full Version : Russia vs United States of America.


Reece L
October 13th, 2016, 03:03 PM
It's funny. British politics Are stupid. They just piss off putin to the max. They wonder why Putin is sending ships to Test nucler bombs, and is threatening the USA to vote trump, or he will start a nucler war. It's funny, as he's been claiming he will start a war for years. He is saying he will start a war, if Hilary is voted.

Sorry America, you guys are f--ked if any president gets in. Nucler bombs if Hilary wins. Donald will start ww3 and Donald will out America in debit and bankruptcy. As he fell into it a lot.

God be with America.

Your thought?

Who will win?

Flapjack
October 13th, 2016, 03:04 PM
Who will win in a war between America or Russia?
With NATA I suspect America but both countries are extremely powerful so either could. I doubt this war will be triggered by Trump and should this war start, it would be horrific for both sides, ordinary citizens and the world.

Reece L
October 13th, 2016, 03:06 PM
Who will win in a war between America or Russia?

Russia as he has over 7,000 nukes ready for deployment any second he wants.

Flapjack
October 13th, 2016, 03:07 PM
Russia as he has over 7,000 nukes ready for deployment any second he wants.
I doubt either side will use nuclear weapons, using them assures one's own destruction.

Mars
October 13th, 2016, 03:10 PM
Russia and The United States aren't going to start a war.

Reece L
October 13th, 2016, 03:15 PM
Who will win in a war between America or Russia?
With NATA I suspect America but both countries are extremely powerful so either could. I doubt this war will be triggered by Trump and should this war start, it would be horrific for both sides, ordinary citizens and the world.

Donald will cause a war. Trust me, kicking out all Muslims will attract Isis. Isis leaders will use it as a excuse to the brainwashed Isis soldiers. But Isis are not Muslim as the leader brainwashes them thinking Isis is part of Islam. When it actually isn't as Allah forbids murder.

And that would lead to other Muslims joining Isis most likely! To get revenge on the USA. Baaaad move.

When Donald said, "if you want to see a wall built, ask Isreal." Im Like... Yeah... Isreal killing Palestinians and keeping them captive. That's what Donald will do.

And Donald likes Putin. Putin like Donald. Don't see a Chain? I certainly do.
Donald claimed he posted a video of Russian men and soldiers and Medals by accident instead of American soldiers and medals. ... Still don't see the chain?

There's something going on.

Russia and The United States aren't going to start a war.

Lol. Russia has tested nucler misses, sent navy ships, submarines, to the west near uk, and near American boarders and has nucler missilea on stand by. and said he is ready and will start a war if Donald isnt elected. Putin may look soft, but he's fukin crazy.

Posts merged. Use the edit and multiquote button next time. ~Mars

Mars
October 13th, 2016, 03:16 PM
Donald will cause a war. Trust me, kicking out all Muslims will attract Isis. Isis leaders will use it as a excuse to the brainwashed Isis soldiers. But Isis are not Muslim as the leader brainwashes them thinking Isis is part of Islam. When it actually isn't as Allah forbids murder.

And that would lead to other Muslims joining Isis most likely! To get revenge on the USA. Baaaad move.

When Donald said, "if you want to see a wall built, ask Isreal." Im Like... Yeah... Isreal killing Palestinians and keeping them captive. That's what Donald will do.

And Donald likes Putin. Putin like Donald. Don't see a Chain? I certainly do.
Donald claimed he posted a video of Russian men and soldiers and Medals by accident instead of American soldiers and medals. ... Still don't see the chain?

There's something going on.
1. Donald Trump can't kick muslims out of the country
2. Donald Trump isnt going to be elected
3. Donald Trump can't just start an alliance wigs Russia just like that
4. Nor can he drop out of NATO just like that

Reece L
October 13th, 2016, 03:17 PM
I doubt either side will use nuclear weapons, using them assures one's own destruction.

True. But Putin is a pskyo. Lol

Mars
October 13th, 2016, 03:19 PM
Lol. Russia has tested nucler misses, sent navy ships, submarines, to the west near uk, and near American boarders and has nucler missilea on stand by. and said he is ready and will start a war if Donald isnt elected. Putin may look soft, but he's fukin crazy.

Sources?

Vlerchan
October 13th, 2016, 03:22 PM
It was some ultranationalist nut that made the claim there would be a nuclear war if Trump wasn't elected and that's been offered without the context.

Russia and the United States won't enter military conflict any time soon.

Reece L
October 13th, 2016, 03:27 PM
1. Donald Trump can't kick muslims out of the country
2. Donald Trump isnt going to be elected
3. Donald Trump can't just start an alliance wigs Russia just like that
4. Nor can he drop out of NATO just like that

Lol. Well which ever one gets elected..., your fucked.... Bernie would of been a good Perez.

Sources?

Look it up its all over

Posts merged. Use the multi quote button. ~Mars

Mars
October 13th, 2016, 03:28 PM
Lol. Well which ever one gets elected..., your fucked.... Bernie would of been a good Perez.

I don't fully disagree, but it isn't because of relations with Russia. Hillary Clinton will be a much better president than Trump could ever imagine

Look it up its all over
If you can't provide a source,don't mention it and try to make a point out of it.

Reece L
October 13th, 2016, 03:30 PM
Who will win in a war between America or Russia?
With NATA I suspect America but both countries are extremely powerful so either could. I doubt this war will be triggered by Trump and should this war start, it would be horrific for both sides, ordinary citizens and the world.

Imagine King Jung, and China and Russia....shit man that's the end of humanity. Lol. NK - north korea. has made rank 4 for best armies in the world. And has nucler weapons and is testing them. Not saying they'll team up, China, Russia, North Korea, all three are dictators. Would work great for them.

Vlerchan
October 13th, 2016, 03:33 PM
North Korea doesn't even make most rankings.

Russia and China have divergent geopolitical interests and have little incentive to get their asses handed to them by the NATO coalition even if they did.

Mars
October 13th, 2016, 03:35 PM
North Korea doesn't even make most rankings.

Russia and China have divergent geopolitical interests.

Imagine King Jung, and China and Russia....shit man that's the end of humanity. Lol. NK - north korea. has made rank 4 for best armies in the world. And has nucler weapons and is testing them. Not saying they'll team up, China, Russia, North Korea, all three are dictators. Would work great for them.

Agreed with Vlerchan. Russia has no allies, really. North Korea is isolated from the rest of the world, and both our relationships with China are hella on the rocks. Russia isn't going to do shit. The US isn't going to do shit.

Reece L
October 13th, 2016, 03:40 PM
I don't fully disagree, but it isn't because of relations with Russia. Hillary Clinton will be a much better president than Trump could ever imagine


If you can't provide a source,don't mention it and try to make a point out of it.

http://www.morningnewsusa.com/ww3-alert-russia-and-china-take-america-as-a-real-threat-us-launches-missiles-against-enemies-23111976.html

I am right. China is siding with Russia. Dam. if this ain't enough proof look up " Russia threatening ww3"

Agreed with Vlerchan. Russia has no allies, really. North Korea is isolated from the rest of the world, and both our relationships with China are hella on the rocks. Russia isn't going to do shit. The US isn't going to do shit.

Lol. And btw, Donald >can< start a war. Just he needs approval. But...not saying he can


Congress holds the power to declare war. As a result, the president cannot declare war without their approval. However, as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, many presidents have sent troops to battle without an official war declaration (ex. Vietnam, Korea) as he may be able to do that if he thinks it's appopriate or emergency related. Which means he may be able to bypass it. I maybe wrong or not. Just hope I am wrong.

Posts merged. ~Mars

Reece L
October 13th, 2016, 03:47 PM
North Korea doesn't even make most rankings.

Russia and China have divergent geopolitical interests and have little incentive to get their asses handed to them by the NATO coalition even if they did.


NK may have outdated weapons, but has many nucler bombs, but he has more then 2M people in the army, and has a population of 24M people. And, North Korea, some how, stole a United States Navy boat, named USS! And none has ever been capable of doing that. They currently are the first every ti have a captured ship, that still works, and is American. As experts claim.

Imagine Kim forcing 20million people into the military! Very rare to happen. But he does force some. But.....it's possible as he would be extremely powerful.

Vlerchan
October 13th, 2016, 03:54 PM
I am right. China is siding with Russia
China and Russia are nominal geopolitical allies but have no shared geopolitical interests that would make them a joint geostrategic threat.

In fact there primary relationship is oppositional where it comes to central asia - a space of traditional Russian influence since the Great Games of the 1800s but in recent times China has began to exert itself as a diplomatic hegamon as it seeks Western space on which to build its New Silk Road. You just need to analyse their respective maneuvering as it occurs withing the context of the SCO. There interests there, and I will add as an aside I consider Central Asia one of the most key geopolitical spaces of this century (alongside the arctic), are widely divergent, as China seeks a rather explicit revisionist position.

For the same reasons China tends to be uneasy about Russian assertiveness vis--vis former regions and client states - re: Ukraine and Georgia and the muted Chinese reaction - because that has significant implications for central Asian policy. So you will find that China won't ever be interested in bolstering Russian expansionism in Eastern Europe. This is without even considering the discussion of whether or not China's future lies with forging trade relations with Central European states - which would need to still exist for such policies to come to fruition.

Russia then has interests in the Middle East which don't align with China's - China would much rather bombs weren't dropping on a major oil-exporter when it needs lots of energy inputs - and China has interests in the South China sea which don't align with Russia's.

---

Your article is absurdly speculative.

but has many nucler bombs
Which can't reach the U.S.:

As I see it even bringing up North Korea in the context of these doomsday scenarios is indicative of a lack of critical thought about the potential military contributions these states can offer.

but he has more then 2M people in the army, and has a population of 24M people.
The US had 16 million men in its army at the height of WWII and its current population is many times that of North Korea. Though, notwithstanding Nuclear Engagement, South Korea is more than capable of annexing the North on its own time.

Arkansasguy
October 13th, 2016, 04:14 PM
Who will win in a war between America or Russia?
With NATA I suspect America but both countries are extremely powerful so either could. I doubt this war will be triggered by Trump and should this war start, it would be horrific for both sides, ordinary citizens and the world.

WWIII will be the first war won by neutral countries.

Flapjack
October 13th, 2016, 04:18 PM
WWIII will be the first war won by neutral countries.
I think WWIII will be horrific for everyone human on this planet today because of how closely economies are linked and the military powers but yeah I see why you say that xD

Porpoise101
October 13th, 2016, 04:29 PM
China [... has] little incentive to get their asses handed to them by the NATO coalition even if they did.
Lol The white devil thinks the Middle Kingdom can't take on NATO. China can play defense for days.* Even when China was in a weak position, they were still able to overcome one of the foremost military powers in the world in the 40s.

Europeans only really succeeded in invading China when the state was at the verge of collapse. Even during the Boxer Rebellion, it took the combined might of France, Britain, US, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Japan, and Italy to actually win the war. And even then, many of the forces were from colonies that the West no longer has. Still, the Boxers put up a great fight and could have made the invasion of China drag on for years if they actually won at Tianjin.

All of these invasions of China happened when the Chinese military was technologically inferior. Image the defensive capabilities of China if the army was equal to or superior to Western armies.

Also worth mentioning: One does not invade China Proper unless you come through Vietnam (Chinese Ally), Mongolia (Chinese buffer state), or North Korea (again, buffer state).

Of course, no one wants to fight such a war. It would be among the most deadly in the world I would imagine.

*Assuming conventional warfare, no nukes

Vlerchan
October 13th, 2016, 04:52 PM
Even when China was in a weak position, they were still able to overcome one of the foremost military powers in the world in the 40s.
I agree that conquering China-proper would be difficult for the reasons you described - the most efficient path to me seems as if it is through the Indochinese jungles (and I'm sure we are all aware of what happened there last time). But I'm prepared to claim that a NATO alliance would engage in the swift naval defeat of the Chinese and from that position stand capable of pounding it into submission with air-raids. Far as I am aware, China is also entirely energy dependent (and suffers from a significant reliance on the Straits of Malacca) and I am skeptical that it could hold out too long under a competent blockade.

You seem to have a far superior understanding of Chinese military history than I do, though, so at this point I can probably cede that I did underestimate them under initial assessment.

Paraxiom
October 13th, 2016, 05:43 PM
Russia and The United States aren't going to start a war.

I hope not, and expect them not to (though I'm 'open' to being wrong). Gladly the principle of mutually assured destruction (MAD) is a thing thought of on both sides.


Reece L

For such a nuclear war between the US and Russia, unless physical direct usage of nuclear weaponry is limited and with each use being of critical and progressive value in the war's course, I don't think that either country can call themselves a winner when you have A LOT of damage done around the place. Neither would be able to incapacitate the other without huge loss to themselves if both engage in war at about the same time, and even pre-emptive attacking would be stoppable by automatic radar defence protocols and such.

TL;DR nobody would as such win, not in a nuclear war anyway. A nasty radioactive stalemate is what I would expect.

Both are justifiably very enthusiastic in avoiding war with the other, with MAD being a big motivator.


WWIII will be the first war won by neutral countries.

A good point.

Falcons_11
October 13th, 2016, 08:28 PM
WWIII will be the first war won by neutral countries.

Cool! I surely hope one of the those neutral countries are the Fiji Islands.

Drewboyy
October 13th, 2016, 09:20 PM
America has as many nuclear warheads as every other country minus Russia combined. America+ Allies has more than non-allies. And a lot of the Russian nuclear weapons that they counted for us are really outdated but just the number scares people. Plus, America's defense system is extremely ahead of every others. So it's debatable that no nuke will get even halfway past any ocean.

This is if someone presses the button, which is extremely unlikely. Based on everything else? The us is very far ahead in almost every category.
-The only way we'd lose a war is if the president is at a concert or if the president is sleeping while a major operation is going on or something like that. But that's crazy talk! Why would a politician ever do that?? Especially one voted in fairly

Uber
October 14th, 2016, 03:37 AM
World War 3 will last 12 hours, and no one is going to win it.

Sonicomsk
October 14th, 2016, 07:00 AM
Okay, now, as a Russian, I'll tell you what's happening here. Can't say anything about nukes, but some people say they haven't been updated since XX century, however, I hardly believe that.
From the other hand, I know that military factories are getting a huge orders from the government, so?.. Maybe it's for Syria, but who knows?

anyway, I'd like to move away from Russia somewhere like Australia. I don't think they are going to take part in WWIII, so it'd be the safest place, imo.

phuckphace
October 14th, 2016, 09:59 AM
nuclear war ain't happening anytime soon, peeps. it's suicidal, end of.

anyway, I'd like to move away from Russia somewhere like Australia. I don't think they are going to take part in WWIII, so it'd be the safest place, imo.

hope it works out, fam. riding a kangaroo should be easy since you already know how to ride a bear (shirt on or off? this is important)

Paraxiom
October 15th, 2016, 03:14 PM
America has as many nuclear warheads as every other country minus Russia combined. America+ Allies has more than non-allies. And a lot of the Russian nuclear weapons that they counted for us are really outdated but just the number scares people. Plus, America's defense system is extremely ahead of every others. So it's debatable that no nuke will get even halfway past any ocean.

Have you ever considered that the information you get through the media is biased against the Russians, and vice versa? Of course it would appear that the US is better than Russia 'on this side'.

The Russian nuclear weaponry is hardly outdated, don't make that mistake.


This is if someone presses the button, which is extremely unlikely.

As we are effectively in a second cold war though, 'extremely unlikely' is an unlikely phrase for me to use.

If you do medium-level investigation online, you will find that there is an increasing number of ordered troop and weaponry deployment on standby on both sides of the Russian border. The Donbass War is still going as well, despite relatively very low media coverage of it in general.


Based on everything else? The us is very far ahead in almost every category.

No.


Okay, now, as a Russian, I'll tell you what's happening here. Can't say anything about nukes, but some people say they haven't been updated since XX century, however, I hardly believe that.
From the other hand, I know that military factories are getting a huge orders from the government, so?.. Maybe it's for Syria, but who knows?

Well, it's interesting how this is going on along Putin strongly recommending all Russian elites abroad, and children studying abroad, to return to the country.

Along with Putin cancelling a trip to France, I'm not confident about the safety of what's going on.

The worst part though is probably the practical lack of media coverage on this. How convenient it is, it seems.

I'm actually more worried about Clinton doing wars in general than Trump, which further complicates this whole election situation.

(Try to) watch this space.


anyway, I'd like to move away from Russia somewhere like Australia. I don't think they are going to take part in WWIII, so it'd be the safest place, imo.

Perhaps, perhaps not.


nuclear war ain't happening anytime soon, peeps. it's suicidal, end of.


Suicidal? probably.

- - - - - - - -

To paraphrase what King Robert Baratheon said in ASOIAF/GoT, I'm not confident to say that a war is not coming. There's too much around that is near/on edge.

mattsmith48
October 15th, 2016, 06:23 PM
1. Donald Trump can't kick muslims out of the country
2. Donald Trump isnt going to be elected


1. Just like Hitler couldn't kick out all the Jews out of the Germany. How did that turned out?

2. Donald Trump can win.

WWIII will be the first war won by neutral countries.


A good point.

Cool! I surely hope one of the those neutral countries are the Fiji Islands.

You guys don't seem to understand that the nuclear winter caused by WWIII would affect the entire planet

Paraxiom
October 15th, 2016, 07:17 PM
You guys don't seem to understand that the nuclear winter caused by WWIII would affect the entire planet

I know well of the range of effects that could/would occur if many nuclear bomb detonations happened (including nuclear summers).

From what I said, I don't understand why you think I wasn't aware of the effects many of them could unleash.

mattsmith48
October 15th, 2016, 07:31 PM
I know well of the range of effects that could/would occur if many nuclear bomb detonations happened (including nuclear summers).

From what I said, I don't understand why you think I wasn't aware of the effects many of them could unleash.

Just pointing out that even neutral countries would be doomed by WWIII.

WWIII is a war no country would win.

Paraxiom
October 15th, 2016, 08:05 PM
Just pointing out that even neutral countries would be doomed by WWIII.

WWIII is a war no country would win.

Not necessarily, depending on the distribution and intensity of nuclear exchange.

mattsmith48
October 15th, 2016, 08:21 PM
Not necessarily, depending on the distribution and intensity of nuclear exchange.

True but in the case of WWIII where everyone who as nukes would use them it would happen

PlasmaHam
October 15th, 2016, 08:46 PM
True but in the case of WWIII where everyone who as nukes would use them it would happen

That's a possibility, but an extremely small possibility. There are currently only 9 countries with nuclear capabilities. If you factor out Russia and the USA, there are less than 1000 nukes known to exist. Of those, very few are fusion bombs and thus account for a very small percentage of total nuclear power. Given that it will take over 15,000 of the strongest nuclear bombs ever made(Tsar Bomba) to destroy all of the Earth, I doubt that less than 1000 of far weaker bombs would do the same. That isn't accounting for radiation, but you should get my point.

mattsmith48
October 15th, 2016, 09:22 PM
That's a possibility, but an extremely small possibility. There are currently only 9 countries with nuclear capabilities. If you factor out Russia and the USA, there are less than 1000 nukes known to exist. Of those, very few are fusion bombs and thus account for a very small percentage of total nuclear power. Given that it will take over 15,000 of the strongest nuclear bombs ever made(Tsar Bomba) to destroy all of the Earth, I doubt that less than 1000 of far weaker bombs would do the same. That isn't accounting for radiation, but you should get my point.

The planet will be fine if WWIII happen. Most living things on the planet would be dead and our civilization completely destroyed, but the planet it self would be fine.

Paraxiom
October 15th, 2016, 10:12 PM
True but in the case of WWIII where everyone who as nukes would use them it would happen

I don't think that every nuke would be fired just because people have them.


That's a possibility, but an extremely small possibility. There are currently only 9 countries with nuclear capabilities. If you factor out Russia and the USA, there are less than 1000 nukes known to exist. Of those, very few are fusion bombs and thus account for a very small percentage of total nuclear power. Given that it will take over 15,000 of the strongest nuclear bombs ever made(Tsar Bomba) to destroy all of the Earth, I doubt that less than 1000 of far weaker bombs would do the same. That isn't accounting for radiation, but you should get my point.

mattsmith48

Depending on the types of nuclear bombs, detonating many tens of them in fast succession would be significantly bad and probably heading into a nuclear winter, along with danger of severely depleting the ozone layer.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Consequences]

It's an ongoing scientific field with debate of course, but still. The worst-case scenarios for such nuclear winters would reduce solar radiation to the surface of the planet by way over 90% (worst-case though).

mattsmith48
October 15th, 2016, 10:28 PM
I don't think that every nuke would be fired just because people have them.




mattsmith48

Depending on the types of nuclear bombs, detonating many tens of them in fast succession would be significantly bad and probably heading into a nuclear winter, along with danger of severely depleting the ozone layer.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Consequences]

It's an ongoing scientific field with debate of course, but still. The worst-case scenarios for such nuclear winters would reduce solar radiation to the surface of the planet by way over 90% (worst-case though).

This is what killed the dinosaurs but instead of a nuclear war it was a asteroid and the species that survied didn't had to deal with the radiation or the destruction of the ozone layer cause by the war and they're way of live wasn't depending on technology like us humans.

PlasmaHam
October 15th, 2016, 10:41 PM
The planet will be fine if WWIII happen. Most living things on the planet would be dead and our civilization completely destroyed, but the planet it self would be fine.

I'm afraid you misunderstood the information. There is no way we can actually destroy the planet with nukes, but I was referring to near-total destruction of the Earth surface. Of course there are other considerations like radiation and possible global climate shifts, but those are theoretical and we can't really be sure how that would work out. Since you seem to be talking about total destruction of mankind, I am giving you basically the guaranteed number of just pure firepower.

But from a more grounded approach, why would every country with nukes fire them? In case you were curious, here is the list of those countries:

Russia
USA
France
China
UK
Israel (Probably, they won't admit nor deny anything.)
North Korea
Pakistan
India

If for some reason WWIII does break out, lets say between Russia and US, what makes you so sure they are destined towards mutually ensured destruction? Even though most nuclear countries have an official or unofficial, 'non-first use policy' that doesn't mean that every country will start nuking each other after the first.
This is what killed the dinosaurs but instead of a nuclear war it was a asteroid and the species that survied didn't had to deal with the radiation or the destruction of the ozone layer cause by the war and they're way of live wasn't depending on technology like us humans. Dinosaurs were a bunch of pea-brained reptiles who were mainly cold-blooded and didn't have a sliver of human intelligent. A very cold winter could of wiped them out. Humans, on the other hand, are extremely adaptable, capable of surviving in anything from the jungles of Africa to the barren Arctic deserts. If I had to pick between the two to survive the apocalypse, I think I'll go with the humans. The only real difference between the two scenarios would be the factor of radiation, and that can vary greatly dependent of what kind and in what concentration nukes were used.

Fortunately for us humans, most of us don't require modern technologies to surive

phuckphace
October 15th, 2016, 11:14 PM
another angle to nuclear war is that there's something called second-strike capability, which means that there are various redundancies used to make it as difficult as possible for the enemy to neutralize your attacks so that the mutually assured destruction is 100% guaranteed. this is max-level deterrence right here, folks. it's why they load up submarines with nuclear warheads and send them deep into the ocean where their stealth makes them a bitch to find, much less target and destroy. ergo, USA vs. Russia in particular is 110% the neverest of not fucking happening o'clock. unless it's accidental, or the NORAD cru doesn't have the common sense to say "no" after Prez Hillary gets faded on Jack Daniels and benzos, sees a pepe the frog meme about herself on Twitter and reaches for The Football

Stronk Serb
October 16th, 2016, 06:43 AM
Russia and The United States aren't going to start a war.

This ^^
Neither side is capable to project power on such a scale and for such a length considering the opponents. Also one wrong move and nukes are fired and the warring parties and the third parties (if they survive) wouldn't need light during their night leak because everything will glow and be irradiated.

Donald will cause a war. Trust me, kicking out all Muslims will attract Isis. Isis leaders will use it as a excuse to the brainwashed Isis soldiers. But Isis are not Muslim as the leader brainwashes them thinking Isis is part of Islam. When it actually isn't as Allah forbids murder.

And that would lead to other Muslims joining Isis most likely! To get revenge on the USA. Baaaad move.

When Donald said, "if you want to see a wall built, ask Isreal." Im Like... Yeah... Isreal killing Palestinians and keeping them captive. That's what Donald will do.

And Donald likes Putin. Putin like Donald. Don't see a Chain? I certainly do.
Donald claimed he posted a video of Russian men and soldiers and Medals by accident instead of American soldiers and medals. ... Still don't see the chain?

There's something going on.



Lol. Russia has tested nucler misses, sent navy ships, submarines, to the west near uk, and near American boarders and has nucler missilea on stand by. and said he is ready and will start a war if Donald isnt elected. Putin may look soft, but he's fukin crazy.

Posts merged. Use the edit and multiquote button next time. ~Mars

ISIS are Muslims. They call themselves Muslims, except most of the Muslim world progresses from the barbaric practices just like Christianity did a few centuries back. Trump actually wants to ban Muslims from terrorist breeding grounds from entering the US. Also if the US focuses more on internal factors instead on foreign power projection, they could prevent more terror attacks because less people would be pissed due to US military presence. Donald is actially anti-war. Hillary is the warmonger.

True. But Putin is a pskyo. Lol

Yes and he brought Russia up. When he first came to power, Russia was almost sold off to everyone.

Drewboyy
October 16th, 2016, 07:03 AM
Have you ever considered that the information you get through the media is biased against the Russians, and vice versa? Of course it would appear that the US is better than Russia 'on this side'.

The Russian nuclear weaponry is hardly outdated, don't make that mistake.

Someone 2 posts after me confirmed those were rumors going around IN RUSSIA.

And maybe not all Russian nuclear tech but the number itself consists of even the most outdated ones that may not even work.

As we are effectively in a second cold war though, 'extremely unlikely' is an unlikely phrase for me to use.

If you do medium-level investigation online, you will find that there is an increasing number of ordered troop and weaponry deployment on standby on both sides of the Russian border. The Donbass War is still going as well, despite relatively very low media coverage of it in general.


Saying the chances of a country (any country) using a nuke is low, isn't an unfair statement to say in almost every circumstance. Including impending war and war.

And how, exactly, is the us military not ahead in almost category?

Porpoise101
October 16th, 2016, 03:00 PM
When he first came to power, Russia was almost sold off to everyone.
And now Russia is sold out to its own billionaire oligarchs. It's a marginal improvement, I'll give Putin that. But his businessmen are buying out other nations now, so he is also feeding the problem to others.

Microcosm
October 16th, 2016, 03:14 PM
Pure military strength is much better on the States' side as shown here: http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=United-States-of-America&country2=Russia&Submit=Compare+Countries

However, it's important to consider that China would likely become involved due to the strong connection between Russia and China since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Ideological bonds and trade bonds between those two super-powers as well as China's growing displeasure with the U.S. (See: Trump and South China Sea ordeals) would almost ensure that China would take to the side of Russia.

The States would likely have European military support, but there is no guarantee that those countries, such as the United Kingdom and France, would want to get involved due to mutually assured destruction and the fact that they are less willing to be aggressive than China.

If Russia were to garner full Chinese military support in an all-out war with the U.S., then it is very likely that they could win. It is also very unlikely that the war would be so "all-out" again due to mutually assured destruction.

Stronk Serb
October 17th, 2016, 01:55 AM
And now Russia is sold out to its own billionaire oligarchs. It's a marginal improvement, I'll give Putin that. But his businessmen are buying out other nations now, so he is also feeding the problem to others.

Still, compared to the nineties, Russia with Putin recovered. I wouldn't say prospered, but they began recovering from the breakup of the USSR. I find it funny how their relative power compared to the US has diminished compared to the Soviet days, but some media still label them enemy #1. Honestly I would be scared more of the Chinese military. They didn't stagnate in military development like Russia did.

Uniquemind
October 17th, 2016, 03:06 AM
Still, compared to the nineties, Russia with Putin recovered. I wouldn't say prospered, but they began recovering from the breakup of the USSR. I find it funny how their relative power compared to the US has diminished compared to the Soviet days, but some media still label them enemy #1. Honestly I would be scared more of the Chinese military. They didn't stagnate in military development like Russia did.

The real danger comes from trade wars over intellectual property of various types of grain feed and other vital crops, GMO's or bred, to the point where a company owns a supply chain of foodstuffs which fuel a population dependent on capitalistic grocery systems.

Nobody would have to lift a finger in violence, strategically a nation could starve out another nation's populace.

PlasmaHam
October 17th, 2016, 08:32 AM
The real danger comes from trade wars over intellectual property of various types of grain feed and other vital crops, GMO's or bred, to the point where a company owns a supply chain of foodstuffs which fuel a population dependent on capitalistic grocery systems.

Nobody would have to lift a finger in violence, strategically a nation could starve out another nation's populace.

Yes, that could work with densely population or poorer countries, but I'm not certain that could really affect a conflict between Russia and the USA. Both countries are food independent if you may. They both have the capabilities to grow all the food their population needs without too much hardship. But that could be an effective tactic Russia could deploy against many European countries. I doubt Russia will do that though, despite what the media likes to say, Russia is not the superpower it used to be.

phuckphace
October 17th, 2016, 08:44 AM
nuclear war doesn't seem like a very funny subject but if you've spent as much time on the Internet as I have you've undoubtedly seen some of the South Korea vs. Japan banter, holy hell my sides

Takumi: I don't rike America, they are imperiarist baka gaijin ^____^
Kim: 9 AUGUST 1945 BEST DAY OF MY LIFE! WHY ONLY TWO NUKES, AMERICA????

it's doubly funny to a white person how much the Asians on one anthill hate the Asians on the anthill several feet over when the actual differences between the two are basically kimchi vs. sushi

Uniquemind
October 17th, 2016, 01:21 PM
Yes, that could work with densely population or poorer countries, but I'm not certain that could really affect a conflict between Russia and the USA. Both countries are food independent if you may. They both have the capabilities to grow all the food their population needs without too much hardship. But that could be an effective tactic Russia could deploy against many European countries. I doubt Russia will do that though, despite what the media likes to say, Russia is not the superpower it used to be.

No that's more of a dynamic China could used against USA. We import a lot of food from them.

USA is not food independent although it has the ability too be. It's populace is addicted too the status quo of all the processed foods, and even domestic farmers on the west coast are experiencing hardship due to the 8 year drought. The shift would be hard, and that's not to mention the other under reported news that honeybee colonies are STILL DYING off in large numbers due to some virus that nobody knows the origins of. Honeybees are essential for pollination on farms and last I heard the backup honeybee breeders had colonies die off. (These guys are the ones who supply replacement bees to farmers should the regular bee colonies die off)

Flapjack
October 17th, 2016, 04:11 PM
Russia is not the superpower it used to be.
True but they are still extremely powerful! Underestimating their strength is a terrible idea, the amount of land in Russia and their military strength is just crazy although I do agree that all this fear of Russia is unjustified. Russia is a problem however although diplomacy and hopefully a leadership change in Russia will solve that.

Today we shouldn't be looking to increase the military strength of countries like Russia, the USA and China. We shouldn't be looking for war and certainly not increasing stockpiles and sizes of armies.

Paraxiom
October 17th, 2016, 05:09 PM
Someone 2 posts after me confirmed those were rumors going around IN RUSSIA.

I'm not sure if he did, but it wouldn't matter either way to what I said. The Russian media itself doesn't present national secrets that the westerns don't know about.


And maybe not all Russian nuclear tech but the number itself consists of even the most outdated ones that may not even work.

Even if some are outdated to a degree that they are not functional (which does not make much sense of why the Russians would let such a thing happen), I doubt that those numbers are critical when it comes to usable nuclear weaponry that Russia has in total.


Saying the chances of a country (any country) using a nuke is low, isn't an unfair statement to say in almost every circumstance. Including impending war and war.

It's not an unfair statement if we are taking inductive reasoning here, yes. (that future events/trends will generally resemble past events/trends)


And how, exactly, is the us military not ahead in almost category?

You have the burden of proof to back up the claim that the US 'happens' to be nearly universally superior to every other state with its military. I totally would agree with saying that the US is one of the greatest military entities in the world currently, but not that it is objectively the greatest.


Today we should be looking to increase the military strength of countries like Russia, the USA and China. We shouldn't be looking for war and certainly not increasing stockpiles and sizes of armies.

I hope you meant "shouldn't be looking" rather than "should be looking".

Flapjack
October 18th, 2016, 01:28 AM
I
I hope you meant "shouldn't be looking" rather than "should be looking".
Yeahh shhhh Jack can't English xD

Alien djinn
October 18th, 2016, 09:14 AM
United States are still much much more powerfull than Russia. USA is helped by NATO and god knows who else. USA is an extremely diverse and populated country, that means all kinds of people that could fight for it, without mentionning the help that it would get from the whole western civilization wich is also extremely large and diverse , and other nations like Israel, Turkey and god knows who. Plus they are much more developed and equipped , technologically they are by far superior, the U.S. and NATO military is an apocalyptic monster. Russia is strong, but Russia has only Russia ...

Now who do I support ? Russia. Because they are extremely reasonable and rational compared with USA who is a psycho country. It isn't Russia that finances terrorism, It isn't Russia who uses it's secret services to start revolutions in order to create chaos in the Middle East. It is not Russia that wants to start a nuclear war... Now Russia is not perfect but it doesn't want to see the world burn. Hillary will be elected and she will start WW3 by making US forces kill Russian soldiers in Syria. Think about it, never since the cold war (or maybe not even during the cold war I dunno) we have had Russian forces and American forces in the same territory , each fighting for opposite sides . The US government has considered attacking Syrian government troops recently. Guess who is assisting government troops ? You got it, Russia mates. All this shit smells really really bad, I know how to recognize a totally fucked up situation when I see one, and this one is the most dangerous that we have had since a loong long time.

Stronk Serb
October 18th, 2016, 05:28 PM
United States are still much much more powerfull than Russia. USA is helped by NATO and god knows who else. USA is an extremely diverse and populated country, that means all kinds of people that could fight for it, without mentionning the help that it would get from the whole western civilization wich is also extremely large and diverse , and other nations like Israel, Turkey and god knows who. Plus they are much more developed and equipped , technologically they are by far superior, the U.S. and NATO military is an apocalyptic monster. Russia is strong, but Russia has only Russia ...

Now who do I support ? Russia. Because they are extremely reasonable and rational compared with USA who is a psycho country. It isn't Russia that finances terrorism, It isn't Russia who uses it's secret services to start revolutions in order to create chaos in the Middle East. It is not Russia that wants to start a nuclear war... Now Russia is not perfect but it doesn't want to see the world burn. Hillary will be elected and she will start WW3 by making US forces kill Russian soldiers in Syria. Think about it, never since the cold war (or maybe not even during the cold war I dunno) we have had Russian forces and American forces in the same territory , each fighting for opposite sides . The US government has considered attacking Syrian government troops recently. Guess who is assisting government troops ? You got it, Russia mates. All this shit smells really really bad, I know how to recognize a totally fucked up situation when I see one, and this one is the most dangerous that we have had since a loong long time.

Well, the Soviets smuggled their pilots which flew under North Korean insignia but technically they were part of the KPA because they wore North Korean uniforms and flew in MiGs with North Korean markings. Yeah, the world is nearing the shitter because never in the cold war did we have world powers directly fighting eachother or being directly engaged in armed war. If that happens it will either be a protracted war which would accomplish nothing due to distances involved or go nuclear. Now if it goes nuclear we are all screwed. I think we would be lucky that in case of a nuclear war we still have an atmosphere with somewhat breathable air, or even an atmosphere at all.

rioo
October 19th, 2016, 08:13 AM
Russia and The United States aren't going to start a war.

America already did in movies. :D
I used have russian friend, she said , Why american always making russian guy as bad guy in movies? . and we just don't know to answer haha.

mattsmith48
October 19th, 2016, 08:34 AM
America already did in movies. :D
I used have russian friend, she said , Why american always making russian guy as bad guy in movies? . and we just don't know to answer haha.

Its just that they were seen as villains because they were the enemy of the US for so long, same reason that during WWII Nazis were always the villains because they were the enemy

PlasmaHam
October 19th, 2016, 10:04 PM
America already did in movies. :D
I used have russian friend, she said , Why american always making russian guy as bad guy in movies? . and we just don't know to answer haha.

Russia were the main enemy of the USA for most of the mid and late 20th century. That was the midst of the Cold War, in which the Soviets and the US were at a very uneasy peace. There were a couple scares, most notably the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

On of the big facets of American media is creating adversaries based off real world threats. During the '40s and '50s we had Nazi Germany, the 60's through 80's we had Russians. The 90's to today is an age filled with Middle Easterners and North Koreans. Very often movie makers refer back to the Russians and Nazis, etc because people identify those as obvious adversaries. Also very often source material for movies originates from the Cold War era. That's why Russians feature so prominently in the MCU movies. The comics and characters the movies take inspiration on comes from an Era where Russia was a legitimate and real threat to America.

You know, writing this reminded me of one of my favorite 80's movies. Red Dawn, talks of this exact same scenario, minus nuclear armageddon, and is set in the 80's, but it does show a possible Russia/USA conflict in which America takes heavy loses. Check it out if you like, its a fun movie.

Paraxiom
October 20th, 2016, 07:40 PM
In addition to what I said, my general feeling with Russia is that its actions in e.g. the Syrian War are basically to instill some level of confusion in the West - nobody 'over here' is sure exactly of what its intentions are. As for its nuclear weapons capabilities, I lean on the side that Russia is more powerful than we think it is, but I could be misled by their cunning plan of not being plain up-front with things (relatively, politically), so to speak.

rioo
October 23rd, 2016, 10:54 AM
Based on this, www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining Russia with kazakhstan seems have more Uranium for atomic energy than usa with canada.

Reise
October 24th, 2016, 06:16 AM
Based on this, www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining Russia with kazakhstan seems have more Uranium for atomic energy than usa with canada.
1) Wikipedia isn't a source in itself, if you wanna argue using Wikipedia you have to mention the sources the article mentions itself.
2) There is nothing in this article that lets think that Kazak Uranium is actually sold to Russia.
3) There is a Wikipedia article on Uranium mining in Kazakhstan and according to an article from World Nuclear News (http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Kazakh_uranium_output_continues_to_rise-0908104.html) from 2010 Russia and Kazakhstan do have an agreement concerning Uranium.
4) It is important to note that countries are using (state-owned) companies, companies that then thanks two previous agreements can build nuclear reactors or uranium enrichment facilities in another country and obviously mine the said Uranium. Shares of these companies can be owned by other countries as well. To be clear all of this makes the question of international agreements on uranium exploitation a fucking mess.
5) Following this, I found that according to an article from the "World Nuclear Association" (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/russia-nuclear-fuel-cycle.aspx) of 2016 uranium production plans of 2007 concerning Kazakhstan were of about 4,000 tonnes for 2016. This concerns mining by Rosatom, which is Russian state-owned specialized company.
6) Without taking enrichment facilities and going too deep into the actual agreements I can tell you that Russia does not benefit of all this Uranium.

Nuclear superiority isn't really in how powerful or in how large number your nuclear warheads are but rather your capacity to strike and to stop.
You can have the largest arsenal in the world if your opponent has the ability to stop your missiles you ain't going anywhere far.

Paraxiom
October 27th, 2016, 02:01 PM
Yeahh shhhh Jack can't English xD

It happens.


America already did in movies. :D
I used have russian friend, she said , Why american always making russian guy as bad guy in movies? . and we just don't know to answer haha.

The US has collectively been in danger or half-destroyed like over a hundred times in film plots though, so I am sure they can recover. :rolleyes:

It is frustrating to have Russia be misinterpreted in at least some US films/series as being in a permanent winter as well.

(It's also just weird that many US films have villains with British accents as well.)


mattsmith48 PlasmaHam

I go with what you say but I nevertheless find it to be a thing that could be done without. :P

Flapjack
October 27th, 2016, 03:42 PM
I think people seriously underestimate Russia and the build up of NATO solders on the border of Russia is stupid, provocative and irresponsible.

Porpoise101
October 27th, 2016, 03:47 PM
I think people seriously underestimate Russia and the build up of NATO solders on the border of Russia is stupid, provocative and irresponsible.
No, it is necessary. We must have an edge in any way to prevent the spread of Russian troops to the West and Center of Europe. The Russians have an interest in spreading to the Baltics and the Carpathians. We are condemned to be enemies unless they undergo some radical change to a pro-Western society, or they submit to Western imperialism.

Perhaps the provocative action was Russian intervention and influence, no?

Flapjack
October 27th, 2016, 03:59 PM
No, it is necessary. We must have an edge in any way to prevent the spread of Russian troops to the West and Center of Europe. The Russians have an interest in spreading to the Baltics and the Carpathians. We are condemned to be enemies unless they undergo some radical change to a pro-Western society, or they submit to Western imperialism.

Perhaps the provocative action was Russian intervention and influence, no?
The Russians feel the same about the west buddy and can you imagine the outrage if Russia was deploying troops on the American border?? Russia is not a country that will be bullied into submission and provoking them is dangerous and stupid.

Porpoise101
October 27th, 2016, 04:10 PM
The Russians feel the same about the west buddy and can you imagine the outrage if Russia was deploying troops on the American border?? Russia is not a country that will be bullied into submission and provoking them is dangerous and stupid.
Of course they won't be bullied, but we have to make it clear that they will not move an inch further. By letting them stagnate as a nation, they will suffer enough.

Vlerchan
October 27th, 2016, 05:18 PM
We must have an edge in any way to prevent the spread of Russian troops to the West and Center of Europe.
I might be cynical but I considered this more of a tripwire than an effective deterrent in and of itself. If Russia does act as an aggressor against bordering nations these men will be first to die in their defense - and their eulogies serve the dual purpose of purchasing the political leverage required to wage a war how many miles away on the behalf of people we would never care about otherwise.

Flapjack
October 27th, 2016, 05:19 PM
Of course they won't be bullied, but we have to make it clear that they will not move an inch further. By letting them stagnate as a nation, they will suffer enough.
What do you think making Russia 'stagnate' will do? I suspect it would make them more angry towards the west and with what looks like another cold war building up I reallyyyy don't want that. Russia is an extremely powerful and proud country, people need to stop ignoring that.

Vlerchan
October 27th, 2016, 05:34 PM
Russia is an extremely powerful and proud country, people need to stop ignoring that.
This is the very reason that Porpoise is suggesting that Russia be contained.

It's lack of a geopolitical anchor means that it - by necessity - has pursued a strikingly expansionist policy historically. It's you who is underestimating Russia if you think for a moment that giving them space to maneuver vis-a-vis its neighbors is palatable.

Flapjack
October 28th, 2016, 04:26 AM
This is the very reason that Porpoise is suggesting that Russia be contained.

It's lack of a geopolitical anchor means that it - by necessity - has pursued a strikingly expansionist policy historically. It's you who is underestimating Russia if you think for a moment that giving them space to maneuver vis-a-vis its neighbors is palatable.
Fear mourning will not solve the problem, they see NATO as expansionist and converting their once allies to western supporting countries. With how NATO is acting now they are leading the world towards another world war.

Vlerchan
October 28th, 2016, 04:51 AM
Fear mourning will not solve the problem[.]
This isn't fearmongering. In the last decade alone Russia has staged two armed interventions in neighbouring states - the Ukraine and Georgia - and just happens to be quite engaged in the Middle East where naval bases on the Mediterranean are at stake. It's expansionist - because just like the despised of NATO, it has interests.

Your ostensibly suggested abdication of Western interests in the East will just make it easier for Russia to extract future gains from neighbours (in particular the -Stans who happen to lie on the proposed route of the New Silk Road). This also create an environment conductive to a greater likelihood of war since there's an increased expected gain for the Russians in confrontation.

... and converting their once allies to western supporting countries.
I have no idea why you think it would be better for these states to be dominated by the Russians. The likes of Estonia et al. are jumping at the chance for nominal independence.

You're throwing around the word 'conversion' like it's something seedy.

Danxl
October 30th, 2016, 04:59 AM
There won't be nuclear war or an all-out www3. No one wants that.

phuckphace
October 30th, 2016, 11:21 AM
Russia's expansionist tendencies are annoying and I'd rather they didn't try to annex the Baltic states - with that said at the end of the day I still like the idea of pulling out of the World Cop game, walling ourselves off and let whatever happens happen. we'll reach a point in the near-ish future where this will become a necessity anyway after the shekels run out.

Russia's status as a deeply corrupt petro-state means that its expansionist adventures won't last anywhere near as long as those of the US - let Tsar Putin have his Civ V fun for a couple decades while we work toward energy independence and build that wall. by the time our thousand-year Reich is celebrating its 50th anniversary under God-Emperor Barron I, Russia will again be settled into its natural Slav state as an irrelevant neo-feudal backwater.

Paraxiom
November 6th, 2016, 08:56 PM
Flapjack Porpoise101 Vlerchan

Your recent posts here are partly why I am saying this:

This goes along with me predicting that there will be a short but intense and direct war in Europe within the year (spring?*), with a lot of death (hundreds of thousands*), and nothing nuclear. I'm gladly standing by this until I get proven right or wrong. Let's see how crazy I am with this.


[*These are more speculative than the rest.]


There won't be nuclear war or an all-out www3. No one wants that.

I don't expect either of those to happen. It doesn't rule out what I said though, not at all.


Russia's expansionist tendencies are annoying and I'd rather they didn't try to annex the Baltic states - with that said at the end of the day I still like the idea of pulling out of the World Cop game, walling ourselves off and let whatever happens happen. we'll reach a point in the near-ish future where this will become a necessity anyway after the shekels run out.

Russia's status as a deeply corrupt petro-state means that its expansionist adventures won't last anywhere near as long as those of the US - let Tsar Putin have his Civ V fun for a couple decades while we work toward energy independence and build that wall. by the time our thousand-year Reich is celebrating its 50th anniversary under God-Emperor Barron I, Russia will again be settled into its natural Slav state as an irrelevant neo-feudal backwater.

Sure...

CoolGuy108
November 8th, 2016, 09:26 AM
If this war ever happened, the US would lose, and lose hard. The Russians tend not to give up. Ask Hitler lol