TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Russia plans new ICBMs, nuclear subs
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium You are basing your entire argument around that straight 15,000 km line from Iran to USA through Eastern Europe, which I give you a credit for.

No I didn't base my entire argument around a straight 15,000km line from Iran to the USA. You solely based your criticism on the erroneous assumption that ABM bases in Poland cannot possibly be in response to an Iranian missile launch against western Europe or the US due to geographical location ... a specific contention that I responded to.

quote:

Then, since you fit North Korea in here, you remember their missile tests AND HOW FAR THEY WENT??? Haha, those missiles barely outreached Japan. So much for the claim that they can hit the States.

Well now this is just specious reasoning here. North Korea has built a 3 stage missile that theoretically has the range to strike the US. The fact that they are having hangups on implementation does not mean that they do not have the capability or imminent capability of striking the US. You think they're all sitting around twiddling their thumbs after the first missile launch? The European Ariane 5 rocket failed on its first launch ... does this mean that Europe does not have nor will it imminently have the capability of launching satellites in space with the Ariane 5 rocket? C'mon let's use some common sense here. The Taepodong 2 rocket test fired in July was configured to deliver a satellite into orbit rather than a flight test for a ballistic missile as it was designed for. Furthermore, to respond to the distance argument of Iran, Iran would definitly have the range to strike western europe if it gained missile technology from N. Korea:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=21008&d=1169458435

quote:

Then, Iran is DOESNT HAVE and not planning to build nukes (despite media reports, and despite talk there's no evidence they've started on developing nuclear weapons),

Yes they do not have nukes but they're blatantly trying to develop them. You don't need enriched fuel for peaceful nuclear energy, so why build the high speed centrifuges to develop highly enriched uranium? Why make the uranium hexaflouride used for enrichment purposes if they're not trying to enrich uranium? Look even Russia and China cast their vote in the Security Council to ORDER Iran to suspend nuclear activities in resolution 1737. So are you saying Russia is retarded for casting their vote in such a resolution with no basis to support it?

http://www.economist.com/world/afri...y_id=E1_RGGJTGD

quote:

and long-flight missile technoology with all the accurate navigation, satellite system, etc. etc. And they have to test it before anything!!! What if the missile does veer off course and hit Russia because of low fuel, mechanical problem, etc? What kind of an idiot would spend huge amounts of money for preparing against a possible enemy that might never become so powerful?When oil prices will go down, Iran will weaken.

Since when do you need accurate navigation when it comes to nuclear weapons? Since when do you need satellite systems? You do know that there weren't any satellites around when the Germans launched V-2 rockets during WW2 right? They seemed to hit London well enough without them. Come on, it's just physics and mechanical engineering.

quote:

But wait - why is NATO EXPANDING IN EASTERN EUROPE? IS IT TO PROTECT AGAINST IRAN? WHY IS USA MISSILE MISSILE DEFENSE EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS IN ALASKA? TO SHOOT DOWN NORRTH KOREAN NON-EXISTING FAILED MISSILES (that will fly on a trajectory much more to the south)?

NATO is a separate discussion altogether, I don't know why you're bringing it into this argument ... particularly since you brought it up on a point of conjecture rather than to support a thesis. As for Alaska ... sigh, do I have to do all the investigative work? Why don't you do a little bit of research and respond to your own questions?



Hmmm Alaska seems pretty well position for an attack on a major american city from N. Korea. But here's a far more simpler reason to base an ABM system in Alaska ... Alaska itself is a likely target to be attacked. Particularly since it has numerous military bases.

quote:

You did make a good point that Poland is somewhere in line through to USA on a long long journey that requires a very sophisticated missile. But then you claim that USA is building these bases to fight against the enemny, when you know that they dont have the technology to shoot down the missiles? Dont you think it will be cheaper to just make a terrorist attack claim and attack those countries? Or is there oil involved - how come NK is considered too be a terrorist threat (to global security), they have tested nuclear devices, they have threatened America, they have tested missiles, and YET America says that Iran is a threat, and refuses to "liberate" NK and instead feeds that regime with money and food for G-d knows how long? WHERE'S THE RATIONALE?

Huh? I have trouble following your train of thought. It's almost like stream of consciousness sometimes. No offense, but do you write your academic papers this way?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well now this is just specious reasoning here. North Korea has built a 3 stage missile that theoretically has the range to strike the US. The fact that they are having hangups on implementation does not mean that they do not have the capability or imminent capability of striking the US. You think they're all sitting around twiddling their thumbs after the first missile launch? The European Ariane 5 rocket failed on its first launch ... does this mean that Europe does not have nor will it imminently have the capability of launching satellites in space with the Ariane 5 rocket? C'mon let's use some common sense here. The Taepodong 2 rocket test fired in July was configured to deliver a satellite into orbit rather than a flight test for a ballistic missile as it was designed for. Furthermore, to respond to the distance argument of Iran, Iran would definitly have the range to strike western europe if it gained missile technology from N. Korea: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=21008&d=1169458435

Let me make it simple for you: NK/Iran doesnt have the capability or the technology right now to deliver accurately a precise missile attack on American cities. Theories are theories. Its actually more evident that NK is willing to drop its nuclear aspirations for very little price. You haven't noticed that the reason these rogue states are threatening/developing these technologies is because of American global expansion that is aimed at these states. No rogue state would sit there and pray and hope that USA will not do something about it.

The only thing that would result in USA's military buildup, Star Wars development, is a whole new arms race because Russia sees American hostility and criticism.

I respect your research and your opinion, and I have my own view here. But what you fail to notice is that the ballistic missile is actually the lowest elevation and speed at take-off, and it has the highest, fastest speeds when its half-way through to its target (over Alaska, Poland). So technically it would be smarter to build the base in Japan, Turkey, Iraq! This way it would not only be more effective to defend better against these rogue states agressions, but keep Russia happy too. Russian politicians are no idiots - they see NATO's expansion, American military bases in Central Asia, American military advisers in Georgia, American in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. No brainer they see American encroachment around it. And its only dumb to conclude that this has peaceful means.

quote:

Yes they do not have nukes but they're blatantly trying to develop them. You don't need enriched fuel for peaceful nuclear energy, so why build the high speed centrifuges to develop highly enriched uranium? Why make the uranium hexaflouride used for enrichment purposes if they're not trying to enrich uranium? Look even Russia and China cast their vote in the Security Council to ORDER Iran to suspend nuclear activities in resolution 1737. So are you saying Russia is retarded for casting their vote in such a resolution with no basis to support it?

Well, duh, Russia is against it because a) it doesnt want nuclear Holocaust, b) it doesnt want to look like it is giving Iran nuclear weapons technology. But at the same time, it wants Iran to be able to defend against an American aggression. One thing for sure, what you're not taking about here, is that Russia and China ARE ABSOLUTELY against any military measures against Iran, to protect their interests.

quote:

Since when do you need accurate navigation when it comes to nuclear weapons? Since when do you need satellite systems? You do know that there weren't any satellites around when the Germans launched V-2 rockets during WW2 right? They seemed to hit London well enough without them. Come on, it's just physics and mechanical engineering.

You fail to notice the distance between Germany and England, comparing the distance between Iran and USA for example. And V-2 missiles weren't all that accurate, and the larger the distance, the more it will veer off target. Some of these V-2 missiles crashed in the sea, others failed to reach the target. And because of their simplicity and low altitudes, British managed to develop ways to shoot these down.

quote:

Hmmm Alaska seems pretty well position for an attack on a major american city from N. Korea. But here's a far more simpler reason to base an ABM system in Alaska ... Alaska itself is a likely target to be attacked. Particularly since it has numerous military bases.

How about building a base like that in Japan to protect Japan and USA? Ideal and best chance to shoot down missiles in their first/early stages, when they're slowest and easy to target.

quote:

Huh? I have trouble following your train of thought. It's almost like stream of consciousness sometimes. No offense, but do you write your academic papers this way?

I dont spend an hour on a post. I actually spent about 10 minutes writing my reply to you. I have many other important things to do other than chit-chatting here. So I am not writing an academic paper here, so no need to get cocky.




Tell me this - these bases right now, they are not defending against Iran/NK because they dont have the technology. What ARE they monitoring then, whose military movements and activities? You think they're just sitting there playing solitaire?

Dude Russia should dismantle their nucleur arsenal. That country will be muslim in less than 50yrs. Can you picture a Muslim country with thousands of nukes?

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Dude Russia should dismantle their nucleur arsenal. That country will be muslim in less than 50yrs. Can you picture a Muslim country with thousands of nukes?

Yes. The first ass they will pin down with those nukes is yours.

quote:

U.S. Should Have Informed Russia about Stationing Missile Defense Sites in Europe The United States should have discussed with Russia stationing its anti-missile defense systems in Czechia and Poland, said German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the media worldwide reported. �Because the sites for the stationing are quite near Russia, one should have talked about it with Russia beforehand,� Steinmeier said as quoted by The Washington Post. On January 31, 2007, the United States urged Poland and Czechia to host elements of the U.S. missile defense system. This offer outraged Russia and divided Poland. But Polish Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski obviously favors the shield and President Lech Kaczynski equally backs up the idea. Poland is expected to come up with an official answer within two weeks. The delay has been caused by an abrupt retirement of Defense Minister Radoslav Sikorski. New Minister Aleksander Szczyglo will personally reply to Washington.

U.S. Should Have Informed Russia about Stationing Missile Defense Sites in Europe

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Dude Russia should dismantle their nucleur arsenal. That country will be muslim in less than 50yrs. Can you picture a Muslim country with thousands of nukes?

Ummmm ... Russia is a nation of 145 million people. There are 20 million Muslims. Yes, I can CLEARLY see in 50 years it will be a Muslim-dominated country!

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Ummmm ... Russia is a nation of 145 million people. There are 20 million Muslims. Yes, I can CLEARLY see in 50 years it will be a Muslim-dominated country!

Dude its fact. Russians don't have that many babies(slavic). The ones who do have babies are mostly Muslims or people of Asian descent. It is a fact.

Im sorry that you still are use to not believing facts, must be the effect of soviet rule for 75yrs-

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Let me make it simple for you: NK/Iran doesnt have the capability or the technology right now to deliver accurately a precise missile attack on American cities. Theories are theories. Its actually more evident that NK is willing to drop its nuclear aspirations for very little price. You haven't noticed that the reason these rogue states are threatening/developing these technologies is because of American global expansion that is aimed at these states. No rogue state would sit there and pray and hope that USA will not do something about it.

Iran does not have the capability to deliver a precise missile attack on an American city yet. North Korea might be able to strike the US with its Taepodong missile. They definitely have a 3 stage missile that should have the range of being able to hit the US. Yes it�s reliability is questionable, however, given that the test of the missile was for a satellite launch orbit, rather than a ballistic missile delivery trajectory it could very well be capable of traveling its suspected 4000-6000km. Even if it�s not operationally active, it would be shortsighted to create a defensive shield after these countries develop nuclear weapons or after they create a capable ICBM. It�s not like the ABM system is going to be built in Poland overnight � it will probably be some years before it will be operationally active. Common sense dictates taking the precautionary measure of beginning the installation today so that when Iran or N. Korea do have the ability to strike the US several years from now the system is in place. But this thread topic isn�t about justification for countering Iranian or N. Korean threats, the thread was about the risks posed to Russia by the ABM shield, to which I still strongly contend as being extremely minimal.

quote:

The only thing that would result in USA's military buildup, Star Wars development, is a whole new arms race because Russia sees American hostility and criticism.

I would agree � if the ABM system could counter Russia�s nuclear deterrence. But it can�t and nor will it ever. Not with the cost or quantity of interceptors.

quote:

I respect your research and your opinion, and I have my own view here. But what you fail to notice is that the ballistic missile is actually the lowest elevation and speed at take-off, and it has the highest, fastest speeds when its half-way through to its target (over Alaska, Poland). So technically it would be smarter to build the base in Japan, Turkey, Iraq! This way it would not only be more effective to defend better against these rogue states agressions, but keep Russia happy too. Russian politicians are no idiots - they see NATO's expansion, American military bases in Central Asia, American military advisers in Georgia, American in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. No brainer they see American encroachment around it. And its only dumb to conclude that this has peaceful means.

Actually I did not fail to notice the positioning of the ABM bases. If you refer back to my earlier post I mentioned that these are THAAD missiles as opposed to Boost Phase Intercept missiles. THAAD is a terminal phase interceptor designed to intercept the missile as it reenters the atmosphere.

http://www.fas.org/ssp/bmd/guide/terminal.htm

That�s another reason why Russia is completely unaffected by THAAD being in Poland. They are nowhere near the trajectory of Russian ICBMs to effectively intercept them.

quote:

Well, duh, Russia is against it because a) it doesnt want nuclear Holocaust, b) it doesnt want to look like it is giving Iran nuclear weapons technology. But at the same time, it wants Iran to be able to defend against an American aggression. One thing for sure, what you're not taking about here, is that Russia and China ARE ABSOLUTELY against any military measures against Iran, to protect their interests.

Well wait you just said Iran was not seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Yet you�re justifying Russia�s security council vote condemning Iran for something they�re not doing? There�s some incongruency here.

quote:

You fail to notice the distance between Germany and England, comparing the distance between Iran and USA for example. And V-2 missiles weren't all that accurate, and the larger the distance, the more it will veer off target. Some of these V-2 missiles crashed in the sea, others failed to reach the target. And because of their simplicity and low altitudes, British managed to develop ways to shoot these down.

Merely pointing out that you don�t need accuracy when you put a nuclear warhead on top of a missile and nor do you need satellite systems for a ballistic missile.

quote:

How about building a base like that in Japan to protect Japan and USA? Ideal and best chance to shoot down missiles in their first/early stages, when they're slowest and easy to target.

There are Aegis missile cruisers with boost phase interceptors around Japan. The point is to develop a layered defense so if the Aegis missile cruisers fail to intercept the missiles (a very likely proposition when you consider the number of failed tests) the terminal phase defense system has a chance of shooting it down.

quote:

I dont spend an hour on a post. I actually spent about 10 minutes writing my reply to you. I have many other important things to do other than chit-chatting here. So I am not writing an academic paper here, so no need to get cocky.

Yea neither do I, but sometimes you seem to stray off on tangential topics � it makes it difficult to know whether you�re posing rhetorical questions or genuinely expecting a response.

quote:

Tell me this - these bases right now, they are not defending against Iran/NK because they dont have the technology. What ARE they monitoring then, whose military movements and activities? You think they're just sitting there playing solitaire?

As I said, there are no bases defending against Iran right now. Right now they�re engaged in talks to set them up. As for the interceptor bases in Alaska and California, well since N. Korea has the technology to attack the US they�re presumably monitoring N. Korea. They�re going to need to build a couple hundred more interceptor bases and a few thousand interceptors if they hope to counter Russia. Something the US doesn�t have the money or the willpower to do.

I am saying that Iran appears to be interested in military applications of uranium, but some countries like Russia/China have interests in Iran they want to protect.

I think USA/NATO should build bases to counter the Iranian missile threat, but I believe that building bases in Poland/Czech Republic are a threat. You did manage to downplay the threat of these to Russia with your information, as I am not worried about that much, for the time being. However, Russia has every right to take this situation in its own rightful approach - they should monitor and missile-target the bases in case of any aggression. Also, there's NATO bases in Eastern Europe, expanding close to Russian borders at the same time ;-) its no coincidence along with the Poland/Czech bases to me. Russia should build whatever defense measures necessary to counter any possible plans undertaken that undermine its security and influence in the region.

I always thought and still do so that it would more accurate to target missiles when they're launching, then when they re-enter the atmosphere. Also, I dont think the missiles would re-enter the atmosphere so early in their flights over Poland, near Alaska, thats almost half-way through their trip in the case of Poland ;-). Do you have evidence to prove your point here?

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I always thought and still do so that it would more accurate to target missiles when they're launching, then when they re-enter the atmosphere. Also, I dont think the missiles would re-enter the atmosphere so early in their flights over Poland, near Alaska, thats almost half-way through their trip in the case of Poland ;-). Do you have evidence to prove your point here?

Unfortunately I don't have much time to do research and I'm going to be away for a few days, but I'd be happy to look into it when I get back. Cursory research claim that, " It's designed to intercept missiles during late mid-course or final stage flight, flying at high altitudes within and even outside the atmosphere."

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...dated/index.php

If a weapon is launched at W. Europe I would imagine that would be "late mid-course" if not the "final stage" of flight, but I don't know what that means specifically and obviously the specs are classified. Sooo I dunno.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Unfortunately I don't have much time to do research and I'm going to be away for a few days, but I'd be happy to look into it when I get back. Cursory research claim that, " It's designed to intercept missiles during late mid-course or final stage flight, flying at high altitudes within and even outside the atmosphere." http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...dated/index.php If a weapon is launched at W. Europe I would imagine that would be "late mid-course" if not the "final stage" of flight, but I don't know what that means specifically and obviously the specs are classified. Sooo I dunno.

In addition to your good research, and some other additional reading I've done, I concluded that for the time being these discussed bases are no threat to Russia (though I am still A BIT sceptical of their real uses and effectiveness). However, if I hear a single one of them will be equipped with Patriot missiles or such, you will have a hard time convincing me that they're aimed at defense against Iran.

Also, I figured out after doing some Russian military digging that these bases dont threaten Russian strategic missiles deep within Russia. So I am willing to let go of these bases. But there better be no bases in Baltic states ;-) NATO/USA should be careful not to initiate another arms race with their careless military expansion closer to the Russian borders.

I'm glad to see you have come to your senses while I was away from this thread for the weekend. I'm not sure why it took so long though, all it takes is first grade math to know that a dozen or so interceptors are no threat to 1000+ Russian ICBMs.

If we were building a combined land/sea/air/space based ABM system (Star Wars as you call it, its amusing that you guys are still afraid of Reagan almost 20 years after he left office) capable of destroying hundreds or thousands of missiles at a time then Russia might have cause for concern.

No matter the location of the bases, the ABM system being developed is clearly scaled to shoot down just a few missiles. It only makes sense to get these bases operational well before NK or Iran have sucessfully launched a long range missile. After all, ICBM technology has been perfected for decades, where as the business of shooting down ICBMs is not reliable even today.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX I'm glad to see you have come to your senses while I was away from this thread for the weekend. I'm not sure why it took so long though, all it takes is first grade math to know that a dozen or so interceptors are no threat to 1000+ Russian ICBMs. If we were building a combined land/sea/air/space based ABM system (Star Wars as you call it, its amusing that you guys are still afraid of Reagan almost 20 years after he left office) capable of destroying hundreds or thousands of missiles at a time then Russia might have cause for concern. No matter the location of the bases, the ABM system being developed is clearly scaled to shoot down just a few missiles. It only makes sense to get these bases operational well before NK or Iran have sucessfully launched a long range missile. After all, ICBM technology has been perfected for decades, where as the business of shooting down ICBMs is not reliable even today.

As I said, once NATO/USA starts placing ICBM's/long-range missiles / Patriot missiles, the real nature of the bases will be seen ;-) If they are just placing the interceptors to shoot down missiles in flight over Poland/Alaska, thats fine with me. But the point to this thread, the unfolding events and NATO's expansion closer to Russian borders gives every excuse to Russia to modernize and strengthen its military.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium As I said, once NATO/USA starts placing ICBM's/long-range missiles / Patriot missiles, the real nature of the bases will be seen ;-) If they are just placing the interceptors to shoot down missiles in flight over Poland/Alaska, thats fine with me. But the point to this thread, the unfolding events and NATO's expansion closer to Russian borders gives every excuse to Russia to modernize and strengthen its military.

The USA will never place land based ICBMs or even short range nuclear missiles in Europe near Russia again. It would be diplomatically foolish, a clear provocation, and it would have absolutely no military value. It is much more effective to have SSBNs filled with Trident D5 missiles at unknown locations off the coast of Russia than some land based missile site that can easily be targeted by Russian forces in the event of an attack. Russia could probably see land based missiles in Europe being prepped for launch but they would likely have no warning of an attack by subs until the mushroom clouds start appearing over strategic targets.

And the Patriot missiles, what makes you afraid of them? They have shown very little success shooting down even old technology missiles like SCUD.

quote:

Yes, lets use the soft power of hundreds of aircraft, missiles and other machines to "softly put to sleep" anyone who is willing to resist our advances. Soft power reminds me of some other silly words like replacing suicide bombings with "homicide bombings". I cant imagine how softly can these powerful tools of war can be used. LOL @ "phenomenon unique to every state/culture". You are just blabbering here, you know that aircraft carriers are military weapons designed to kill people, whether you are right on wrong in the situation at hand. And if Russia goes abroad to push its policy as you wish it to do, it will lose support with either Americans, Arabs or both. There is nothing for Russia to gain, other to lose money. Russia will need thousands of troops, lots of money, strategic planning, and many years to achieve even a foothold in Middle East like that of America, and at cost of many lives. You are dreaming, Aquadyne!

Do you even know what "soft power" is? Just go and buy "Soft Power" by Joseph Nye. Or at least do yourself and me a favor and at least google "soft power" before you start running your mouth.

It has nothing to do with military.

quote:

China is feared because its the world's largest economy and its army is the largest in the world and has the capability to inflict serious damage on anyone. China has a lot of money and influence in the region because of its sheer size.

How does that disprove anything I have said? If anything, that's pretty much what I said.

quote:

Basically, you dont have anything strong to add to support your policy that Russia should start pushing its foreign policy by aicraft carriers. The costs, the achievements, the losses will overshadow any gains because a) Russia has all the resources it needs, b) it is too weak right now to counter America or Arab states, c) it has vast internal issues that need to be tackled, d) its foreign policy within C.I.S. has failed, and its not working with USA, Iran, EU - and you expect then that Russia will succeed ALONE with its aircraft carriers trying to push someone around.

I think the question is what is more prudent to invest money to, a stronger navy that can project force or nuclear weapons that are useless. The answer has already been clearly answered not only by me but by many others, you can continue living in denial though.

Magnetonium, it takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. You should try it more often.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Do you even know what "soft power" is? Just go and buy "Soft Power" by Joseph Nye. Or at least do yourself and me a favor and at least google "soft power" before you start running your mouth. It has nothing to do with military.

You are talking about the aircraft carriers for Christ's sake and then you added soft power to them. Stop flip-flopping, aircraft carriers are not an example of soft power (as you now said, it has nothing to do with military).

quote:

I think the question is what is more prudent to invest money to, a stronger navy that can project force or nuclear weapons that are useless. The answer has already been clearly answered not only by me but by many others, you can continue living in denial though. Magnetonium, it takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. You should try it more often.

Yes, invest billions of dollars into aircraft carriers that achieve NOTHING positive for the country like Russia. It achieves nothing, you have not shown any proof or even common sense as to how these aircraft carriers will make Russia better on world stage and how will they make it safer. LOL, you think I am wrong for saying that? I admitted my errors before (recently: USA in isolationism), its you who has a big ego problem and never admitting when you're wrong. You should take your ego and shove it up your own ass ;-) I dont need no hot shots who think they're king shit like you are. So you either argue like normal people do, take example from occrider, or shut the hell up. Thanks!

quote:

You are talking about the aircraft carriers for Christ's sake and then you added soft power to them. Stop flip-flopping, aircraft carriers are not an example of soft power (as you now said, it has nothing to do with military).

Uh huh.

This is the original exchange:

Magnetonium: I am not saying Russia should isolate itself. There's a difference between sending your aircraft carriers, battleships and troops abroad to suppose instead sending oil/gas, knowledge, economy and political influence. You think people like it when you bomb the fock out of you? Aircraft carriers carry weapons, bombs, missiles for a reason, and its not to keep them forever sealed to their barrels,


Aquadyne: Yes, you are referring to the phenomenon of "soft power". And "soft power" nowadays is a much more pervasive and effective way of projecting influence. However, soft power needs to be backed up by hard power. No one is saying that the weapons should be used, but the threat of hard power is significant leverage that no nuclear weapon could provide. Furthermore, soft power takes decades to develop and it is a phenomenon unique to every state/culture.

I merely pointed out that soft power doesn't appear in a matter of years - it literally takes decades to develop and propagate because soft power is projecting influence by effectively projecting one's values, culture and lifestyle. American soft power is effectively channeled by media such as American media conglomerates, Hollywood, by advocating an American lifestyle, by propagating a material consumerist culture and the products that are associated with it.

Russia doesn't have that and even in the best of circumstances probably won't develop something like that for multiple decades. There are many people who aspire to be Americans, who want to emigrate to America. Who the hell wants to be Russian? Who the hell wants to emigrate to Russia?

That is the nature of soft power, my obtuse little friend. And yes, soft power is the most effective and pervasive way of projecting influence because the origin country just has to create the material, the rest of the world is the one who propagates it. Russians paying absurd prices for Levi's Jeans in 1980s? That's soft power. Arabs listening to hip-hop in Middle East? That's soft power.

Aircraft carriers do not project soft power, but for a country who probably won't develop an identity that the world wants to emulate - aircraft carriers, a blue water navy are the best ways of projecting force and influence. That is why I said, soft power is unique to every culture, because soft power is in essence a projection of one's culture.

In regards to soft power eventually needing to be backed by hard power, that is pretty much a given. Weak countries don't project soft power and influence. Strong countries do.

There's no flip-flopping here my boy, just your inability to differentiate between basic concepts and complete ignorance of basic poli sci. terms.

Before you hit reply, like Pavlov's dog, I suggest you educate yourself on the concepts of "soft power" - I have no interest in being your unpaid tutor. Joseph Nye would be a good place to start. Then you can move on to slightly bigger concepts, like the complete lack of need to build nuclear missiles in an age of what is largely tantamount to guerrilla warfare to defend against a non-existent ABM shield.

quote:

Yes, invest billions of dollars into aircraft carriers that achieve NOTHING positive for the country like Russia. It achieves nothing, you have not shown any proof or even common sense as to how these aircraft carriers will make Russia better on world stage and how will they make it safer. LOL, you think I am wrong for saying that? I admitted my errors before (recently: USA in isolationism), its you who has a big ego problem and never admitting when you're wrong. You should take your ego and shove it up your own ass ;-) I dont need no hot shots who think they're king shit like you are. So you either argue like normal people do, take example from occrider, or shut the hell up. Thanks!

Yawn. We already went over this. Do you really need me to re-educate you? You should have been taking notes earlier in the thread.

But for now, you are dismissed.

So now how do you put this in action? Tell me, how will using aircraft carriers and soft power will make Russia popular and strong again on world stage? Tell me, Einstein. It won't happen, and you know it. Thats all I wanted to say.

Yes, everyone around the world loves America, everyone wants to be just like America - what a great example! Surely an ordinary person wants to go there because of what America has done to these countries, countries that lost to America. No need to teach me what hard power vs. soft power is. Go back to your Baltic bloc and suck European Union's arse ;-)

What significant achievements, victories, developments did aircraft carriers achieve for Russia/Soviet Union so far? Huh?

Once someone in the Russian military recognizes your idiotic scheme, and Russian aircraft carriers will dock in Persian Gulf / Middle East, Asia, expect all of the world's aggression and hatred shift from USA to Russia! And even USA will jump on the bandwagon! Russia will then become just like the States today, spending trillions of dollars to upkeep its global empire and continue on plowing. And eventually, as a failed state, it will collapse economically or geopolitically, sort of like Soviet Union.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Once someone in the Russian military recognizes your idiotic scheme, and Russian aircraft carriers will dock in Persian Gulf / Middle East, Asia, expect all of the world's aggression and hatred shift from USA to Russia! And even USA will jump on the bandwagon! Russia will then become just like the States today, spending trillions of dollars to upkeep its global empire and continue on plowing. And eventually, as a failed state, it will collapse economically or geopolitically, sort of like Soviet Union.

you are silly. The US isn't the Soviet Union nor do the people even have the same mentality. In USSR you are brainwashed from the beginning of your life and it stays that way. Thats why older Russians can't grasp democracy. Their so use to have been spoiled and lied to by their government. Unlike here. You have the resources possible to find out what is going on and you can change the system. Not like USSR we won't fall anytime soon. And when we do you can talk all the shit you want to. Till then just stop.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium In addition to your good research, and some other additional reading I've done, I concluded that for the time being these discussed bases are no threat to Russia (though I am still A BIT sceptical of their real uses and effectiveness). However, if I hear a single one of them will be equipped with Patriot missiles or such, you will have a hard time convincing me that they're aimed at defense against Iran. Also, I figured out after doing some Russian military digging that these bases dont threaten Russian strategic missiles deep within Russia. So I am willing to let go of these bases. But there better be no bases in Baltic states ;-) NATO/USA should be careful not to initiate another arms race with their careless military expansion closer to the Russian borders.

Patriots are a VERY short range missile defense system unlike THAAD. If they were placed in Poland they would not be placed with the intent of shielding a direct attack against the US 2 years from now or 10 years from now simply because they're useless against long range missiles. They are perimeter defense missiles which I don't think a base in Poland would need without substantive explanation.

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid you are silly. The US isn't the Soviet Union nor do the people even have the same mentality. In USSR you are brainwashed from the beginning of your life and it stays that way. Thats why older Russians can't grasp democracy. Their so use to have been spoiled and lied to by their government. Unlike here. You have the resources possible to find out what is going on and you can change the system. Not like USSR we won't fall anytime soon. And when we do you can talk all the shit you want to. Till then just stop.

Hmmm, in 1988, did anyone even think Soviet Union was going to collapse? There goes that logic of yours (USA "won't fall anytime soon"). Actually here's a good analogy: Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, which set off a series of events leading to end of Soviet Union - for USA this could possily be their wars in Middle East that are doomed. Also, USA is spending about similar amounts of its total product on the war - just like Soviets did on their military machine. US healthcare (humm, do you have it for free like they had in Soviet Union?), education is underfunded, just like the Soviets, who had it worse. Empires can collapse quickly, it can happen within one presidential term. And most people won't see it coming. In 1945, did people see the end of the British Empire after they won WW2?

As for the main topic, I support the new Russian military revamping - they will put money into most areas to supply Russian military with modern equipment (ex. night vision goggles, advanced communications equipment), proper training and rations, and of course, the mostt important factor - much newer and improved strategiv defense to bolster Russian military image.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.