quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne That's an awesome point, I guess the question is whether Russia has the capacity to build up the functional support infrastructure to support aircraft carrier groups, including support ships, defense ships, upgraded docking/refitting facilities and whether they should design a new type of aircraft carrier (an undertaking that might be beyond their reach now) or build older models. I remember when they sold the Gorshkov carrier to India 2-3 years ago, I think they are left only with one carrier now.

Because an aircraft carrier is an expense and completely useless toy. It's useless incase a war against the US/NATO and it's useless in any other way, because Russian's foreign policy is not a copy of the US one. Today Russia is not trying to project their power on anyone in a forcefull way (I mean by using their military superior). Their military budget is based on defense, it means having advanced enough power to stand against any enemy attack. Aircraft carrier has no place here.

Last edited by on Feb-15-2007 at 13:54

quote:

Originally posted by occrider They can destroy the world several times over with a magnitude greater than any other country. Nope, not impressive at all. Russia should definitely build more ICBMs for the "psychological" effect ... not like other weapons such as aircraft carriers can do such a thing. ...

You didn't get a point. Russia should have let's say 10 ICBMs of so advanced class, that any other nation will need to spend next 10yrs to be able to intercept them. That is the thing this whole budget is about.

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveler You didn't get a point. Russia should have let's say 10 ICBMs of so advanced class, that any other nation will need to spend next 10yrs to be able to intercept them. That is the thing this whole budget is about.

You missed his point, and your word on Russia only spending money on the military for defense purposes does not mean that is, in fact, the case. Russia's recent history of strongarming negotiations with its former sovet co-republics leads anyone who is objective to believe that a stronger strategic military footing will be used as a lever on weaker countries to forward Russia's motives in various economic and political negotiations.

You are spouting the same rhetoric people like Charles LeMay used in the 1950s in the U.S., people who were adamant that a full scale nuclear war could be won and should happen.

As occrider said, the missile defense shield is an expensive and difficult system to construct and maintain. Along with the fact that it has continually failed to prove in tests that it is even close to 50% effective at destroying an incoming vehicle, Russia has little to fear from it, nor does it give them a valid reason to 'upgrade' their already relatively advanced ICBM technology.

As to the aircraft carrier being a "worthless toy", that sounds a lot like the stuff said by many of the world's most respected naval commanders before Dec 7, 1941. By Dec. 8 of that year that fallacy had been disproven pretty handily by one maverick Japanese junior officer.

For Russia, who now has a very large interest in the security of their shipping interest with their entry into the world stage of energy production, the construction of naval forces would be the most effective way to protect their interests if defense was indeed their main goal.

MrS

___________________
Click the sig to see MrSquirrel

-"Reality" is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel ... Russia's recent history of strongarming negotiations with its former sovet co-republics leads anyone who is objective to believe that a stronger strategic military footing will be used as a lever on weaker countries to forward Russia's motives in various economic and political negotiations. ...

That's something new. Now Russia is not only using its energy resources but also military superioty as a politic tool? It'd nice to look on recent examples.

quote:

... As occrider said, the missile defense shield is an expensive and difficult system to construct and maintain. Along with the fact that it has continually failed to prove in tests that it is even close to 50% effective at destroying an incoming vehicle, Russia has little to fear from it, nor does it give them a valid reason to 'upgrade' their already relatively advanced ICBM technology. ...

The US is funding a lot of money into development of that system. One day it'll posses a threat to Russia. Building new ICMB missles is not a weekly task, not even 1 yr task.

quote:

... As to the aircraft carrier being a "worthless toy", that sounds a lot like the stuff said by many of the world's most respected naval commanders before Dec 7, 1941. By Dec. 8 of that year that fallacy had been disproven pretty handily by one maverick Japanese junior officer. For Russia, who now has a very large interest in the security of their shipping interest with their entry into the world stage of energy production, the construction of naval forces would be the most effective way to protect their interests if defense was indeed their main goal. MrS

Yes, that's why they are funding construction of new nuclear submarines, which proved to be the best and most effective way to protect their interests on sea.

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveler One day it'll posses a threat to Russia.

defense shield does not mean a threat to Russia.....

de·fense (dĭ-fĕns') pronunciation
n.

1. The act of defending against attack, danger, or injury.
2. A means or method of defending or protecting.

just in case you were confused..

quote:

I didnt say it would be cheaper, I dont have the figures. But why maintain old systems that are not cheap either, and only G-d knows if they work? New systems provide psychological and technological improvement, just like buying a new house - new things are generally not cheaper. Recent tests of new Russian missiles have been quite impressive, though not very smooth (Bulava). Stealth and detection - well, you're forgetting that Americans have a very sophisticated system of early-warning satellites, so no Russian missile can avoid that right now. Plus current missiles dont have a rapid response system, i.e. to change direction, missile spliting into several fragments/decoys, better chips for protection from electromagnetic shocks, heat absortion - Soviet missiles of 1960s are not advanced in those fields. US military is attempting its Star Wars development - so far, limited success - BUT, what if tomorrow, next week, next month Americans finally succeed? What are you going to say then? You are forgetting to note than US anti-missile development did successfully shoot down a small number of missiles, which is a progress than nothing at all (though a huge waste of money IMO). You expect Russians just to sit there and be sure that American won't succeed? You REALLY think this missile-defense system is impossible? Well, I dont think so ;-) What would Russia do then, huh?

You can stop repeating that herring about missiles being from 1960's. They're not. The oldest ones are from early 1980's and a large portion of Russian nuclear arsenal is deployed on submarines where the missiles are even newer.

Early warning system don't mean much, it only means that you have a couple of extra minutes to retaliate to the First Strike. It does not prevent the First Strike since there no ABM systems to intercept incoming missiles.

Bottom line is that there is no functioning ABM system in the world, there won't be one for a long time due to sheer difficulty of shooting down an object moving at 7 km/ sec in three-dimensional space over a distance of several thousand kilometers. The tests that US did were infantile in their execution, missiles that they launched themselves, from a much closer proximity and the failure rate was still colossal.

quote:

Yes, thats why as part of the military rebuilding, new advanced submarines will be added, as stated in the article. Much better than aircraft carrier, which can be seen with a naked eye. A missile-packed sub is a much bigger menace than let's say a very visible aircraft carrier (which will need many more ships, anti-aircraft system, etc. to protect itself).

I keep telling you that there needs to be degrees of military threat that can be applied rather than giving the only option that is inherent with a nuclear weapon: Comply or Die. Nuclear missile submarines are the same as ICBM's. It's the same principle except that it's at sea. What Russia needs is a conventional force presence at sea. Not everything can be defended with nuclear weapons. By your logic, why have a military at all? Why have an air force, an army, tanks, APC's or even a standing army? Let's just load up on nuclear weapons, right?

quote:

Nuclear weapons are not solutions, I already stated it on some other thread in PDD, they're a problem. The thing is, this is a different topic, and quite frankly disarmament is highly unlikely, impossible right now.

Right... that's why you're advocating a spending more money on nuclear forces at the expense of forsaking the conventional military.

quote:

I recall that Russia sold them one ;-) But I am certain that since India is bordered by its nemesis, Pakistan, having a carrier is a very strategic tool for possible conflict with Pakistan, especially when they're bordering each other.

Why? They have nuclear weapons right? Why would India need an aircraft carrier? Any plane that can can attack Pakistan from the CV can also reach Pakistan from India. Once again, force projection around the world. India population makes it likely that in the future their imports will continue to grow, India needs a force projection tool to ensure that those imports continue to flow and wont become interrupted.

quote:

Yeah, your analogy is similar to American just letting Mexico become communist or anti-American ;-) BWAHAHAHA .... yeah, very feasible. And you think Russia is content at countries like Georgia who are pushing it into a war, using provocations obviously influenced by Americans (Americans give large financial and military contributions to Georgia). NATO plans to build bases there, too. Yeah, lets ignore that. Lets see how Americans will ignore Russians building bases on Cuba again, LMAO!

I didn't say ignore. I said that it might not be solve those problems. US was never able to solve the problem of Cuba regardless of the massive backing that Cuba received from USSR and everything else that had happened: Missile crisis, Bay of Pigs, embargo, etc.

Thus, it's not prudent to devise a military doctrine and chart a course for weapons development based on the issues arising in CIS states. Furthermore, CIS states will be dealt with conventional tactics should it ever come come to diplomatic breakdowns and trading blows, thus all the more reason to focus on conventional military rather than nuclear weapons.

You and Star-Traveller should really absorb what squirrel and occrider are trying to tell you.

This is absolutely correct. Russia already has enough nuclear weapons to overwhelm any ABM system that could be developed in the next 10-20 years. We all know they can initiate or defend against a nuclear attack with a second strike. Where they are lacking is if they are attacked by conventional forces, especially by a country not on the same continent as them. Not having aircraft carriers would hurt them then.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX This is absolutely correct. Russia already has enough nuclear weapons to overwhelm any ABM system that could be developed in the next 10-20 years. We all know they can initiate or defend against a nuclear attack with a second strike. Where they are lacking is if they are attacked by conventional forces, especially by a country not on the same continent as them. Not having aircraft carriers would hurt them then.

Jesus Christ. Here's a summary of my point. Lets say in a few years USA will succeed in building the missile shield - its not impossible task. Russia's missile then will be obsolete. Today's Russian missile are developed to change direction, split into multiple targets, fly at faster speeds. There you go. Russia should and will stop arms buildup if Americans will stop building Star Wars. And I disagree that even though Russia's politics are failing within C.I.S., they shouldn't give up, going to establish domination abroad will not achieve anything - parking an aircraft carrier across from Iraq is not cheap, plus you make enemies either with Americans or Arabs. Right now Russia has good relations with USA (ally on war on terror) and with Iran. Parking the EXPENSIVE aircraft carrier in the Gulf will make one of its friends (or both) enemies. Its just dumb politics!!!! Thats common sense. It all starts with your backyard. No need going around making future abroad if you cant make things work at home. IF RUSSIA CANT MAKE GOOD POLITICS WITH ITS NEIGHBOURS, WHY DO YOU THINK IT WILL MAKE SUCCESSFUL POLITICS ESLEWHERE???? HAHAHAHA ... make that statement just owned you all!!!!

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Jesus Christ. Here's a summary of my point. Lets say in a few years USA will succeed in building the missile shield - its not impossible task. Russia's missile then will be obsolete. Today's Russian missile are developed to change direction, split into multiple targets, fly at faster speeds. There you go. Russia should and will stop arms buildup if Americans will stop building Star Wars.

First of all, the implications is that an ABM shield is imminent and it's coming soon. It's not, that technology is still a very long time away from being built and when it is built it needs to have virtually error free operation otherwise that's not much of a shield. That kind of consistent precision on such a scale is a huge undertaking. It's not a given that it will be built in a few years, it's not even worth hypothesizing something like that.

Furthermore, building those missiles doesnt take longer than a few months. Should America ever develop an ABM shield, missiles can be readily built to counter it. What is the point of building them now?

Quit being obtuse.

quote:

And I disagree that even though Russia's politics are failing within C.I.S., they shouldn't give up, going to establish domination abroad will not achieve anything - parking an aircraft carrier across from Iraq is not cheap, plus you make enemies either with Americans or Arabs. Right now Russia has good relations with USA (ally on war on terror) and with Iran. Parking the EXPENSIVE aircraft carrier in the Gulf will make one of its friends (or both) enemies. Its just dumb politics!!!! Thats common sense. It all starts with your backyard. No need going around making future abroad if you cant make things work at home. IF RUSSIA CANT MAKE GOOD POLITICS WITH ITS NEIGHBOURS, WHY DO YOU THINK IT WILL MAKE SUCCESSFUL POLITICS ESLEWHERE???? HAHAHAHA ... make that statement just owned you all!!!!

1. Why would Russia place its carrier group by Iraq? To what purpose?

2. Actually, the relations betwen US and Russia are very poor right now and have been for a while. But let's take your point of view, if relations between Russia and US are very good then why escalate nuclear armament with Americans? Your own logic is contradictory.

3. In regards to politics with CIS countries and elsewhere, believe it or not - not all countries are the same.

4. You're pathetic.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne First of all, the implications is that an ABM shield is imminent and it's coming soon. It's not, that technology is still a very long time away from being built and when it is built it needs to have virtually error free operation otherwise that's not much of a shield. That kind of consistent precision on such a scale is a huge undertaking. It's not a given that it will be built in a few years, it's not even worth hypothesizing something like that. Furthermore, building those missiles doesnt take longer than a few months. Should America ever develop an ABM shield, missiles can be readily built to counter it. What is the point of building them now? Quit being obtuse. 1. Why would Russia place its carrier group by Iraq? To what purpose? 2. Actually, the relations betwen US and Russia are very poor right now and have been for a while. But let's take your point of view, if relations between Russia and US are very good then why escalate nuclear armament with Americans? Your own logic is contradictory. 3. In regards to politics with CIS countries and elsewhere, believe it or not - not all countries are the same. 4. You're pathetic.

Its not contradictory. Ever since Russia collapsed United States always viewed that when Russia's weak the relations between the two are great. Since Russia rebuilt and got stronger, all of a sudden Americans consider Russia a threat. Its just how it is, nothing's going to change it. The only way Americans will not look bad at Russia is when its broken, weak, like in 1990s. So even European Union had issues with the States about Iraq - but they're still GREAT friends! Isnt that a contradiction???

My point about a carrier was a mock example of placing carrier near Iraq. Well, where do you want to shove it? Up Americans' arse? There is no place out there for Russian aircraft carrier, Russia not only doesnt have any plans for domination, but its a move that will only ruin Russia's political support around the world. Nothing to gain, NOTHING. Issues are at home for Russia, very pressing issues. Only an idiot will ignore these, screw the funding, build aircraft carriers and ship them overseas for money drain. Aircraft carriers dont make countries stronger. Its the behind-the-scenes politics that do, quite frankly Russia can achieve more success and power abroad with proper political motivation than an aircraft carrier. Aircraft carrier will likely result in an arms buildup, thats all.

If USA builds a successful ABM shield, the chances of American attack before Russian missile employment are much greater. After all, USA has a pre-emptive strike policy.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Jesus Christ. Here's a summary of my point. Lets say in a few years USA will succeed in building the missile shield - its not impossible task. Russia's missile then will be obsolete. Today's Russian missile are developed to change direction, split into multiple targets, fly at faster speeds. There you go. Russia should and will stop arms buildup if Americans will stop building Star Wars.

This is flawed logic. America is not building Star Wars. We are building an ABM system that can 'maybe' down a missle or two from a country like Iran or North Korea. How many fucking ICBMs does Russia have? Thousands, and many are equiped with MIRVs. So how can our ABM system that cannot even reliably shoot down a single missile that we shot ourselves make Russia's thousands of ICBMs obsolete. It will always be easier to make an offensive weapon system than a defensive one.

Say we do build Star Wars with lasers in space and all of that fancy stuff. How many space based lasers is it going to take to defend against a massive attack by Russia involving in excess of 1000 missiles? How far away is that technology? Several decades at a minimum. And guess what, Russia has anti-satellite weapons now, which will become even more advanced over the next 10-20 years. If they wanted to launch they could certainly destroy a large part of any space based ABM sheild with those weapons.

Paranoia is getting the better of you. Our ABM system is simplistic and CLEARLY aimed at downing a single missile from a rogue state, not defending against a massive nuclear strike by MIRVed ICBMs. Russia has absolutely nothing to fear from it and has no reason to build any more advanced nukes.

Last edited by XaNaX on Feb-16-2007 at 15:03