There is a purpose, a rationale behind building projects like Star Wars and new Russian missile system. These projects involve huge amounts of money. United States, for example, is not just building their Star Wars for being safe. In fact, they're safe from nuclear attack right now, as they were in early 1980s or so - when they started the program. In fact, during the warming Gorbachev era Reagan pursued his system even more. The planners know what they're doing. The purpose is not to protect America, but to make American aggression around the world safer so that noone can ever dare send a missile at USA. Thats the purpose. And Russia's fighting back in return - because it knows America's intentions and has its own world's strategy that will almost certainly collide with American project, and so it need NEW class weapons and joker-card to make United States bulge. Russia doesnt want to be isolated in the world stage as its becoming right now. Right now Russia's retreating everywhere, and America takes its former strategic zones one country at a time. Waving 40-year-old missiles at USA's latest military machine will not achiever anything. Arming Russia with newer tanks and guns will not make Russia look more powerful on the world scene.

___________________
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 It would be very nice if you stated where I am getting owned or I suggest you stop talking out of your ass. Noone's getting owned here, there's not enough evidence to conclusively proof either side. I stick to common sense and believe in my side of it. /quote] The proof has been shown to you multiple times in this thread, by several people. However, you have chosen to willfully ignore it, side step it and argue minor points instead. I'm sure everyone else is tired of pointing out to you and showing you mutiple instances of proof as to why ABM shields right now and in foreseeable future are largely a pipe dream. [quote]At the same time, explain me why Russia wants to build newer, more powerful and sophisticated missiles? Not enough things to do? You think these generals, military planners are stupid and you, with all your military experience for certain know that they're wrong and dumb?

I'm sure they know exactly what they are doing. And my "expertise" certainly pales in comparison to men who do it for a living.

However, that's not the point. The point is that not everything clear cut as you would like it to be.

Why did the DoD spend 640$ per toilet seat, $240 per hammer and 2100$ per coffee maker?

Why did the DoD cancel the RAH-66 Comanche project after plowing over 8 billion dollars into it?

Why did congress approve building a $300 million bridge to an island of fifty people in Alaska?

Why is Halliburton always the preferred contractor for no-bid government contracts?

Because some ideas that seemed really good at the time, have turned out to be monumentally stupid in the hind sight.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium There is a purpose, a rationale behind building projects like Star Wars and new Russian missile system. These projects involve huge amounts of money. United States, for example, is not just building their Star Wars for being safe. In fact, they're safe from nuclear attack right now, as they were in early 1980s or so - when they started the program. In fact, during the warming Gorbachev era Reagan pursued his system even more. The planners know what they're doing. The purpose is not to protect America, but to make American aggression around the world safer so that noone can ever dare send a missile at USA. Thats the purpose. And Russia's fighting back in return - because it knows America's intentions and has its own world's strategy that will almost certainly collide with American project, and so it need NEW class weapons and joker-card to make United States bulge. Russia doesnt want to be isolated in the world stage as its becoming right now. Right now Russia's retreating everywhere, and America takes its former strategic zones one country at a time. Waving 40-year-old missiles at USA's latest military machine will not achiever anything. Arming Russia with newer tanks and guns will not make Russia look more powerful on the world scene.

LOL.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne I'm sure they know exactly what they are doing. And my "expertise" certainly pales in comparison to men who do it for a living. However, that's not the point. The point is that not everything clear cut as you would like it to be. Why did the DoD spend 640$ per toilet seat, $240 per hammer and 2100$ per coffee maker? Why did the DoD cancel the RAH-66 Comanche project after plowing over 8 billion dollars into it? Why did congress approve building a $300 million bridge to an island of fifty people in Alaska? Why is Halliburton always the preferred contractor for no-bid government contracts? Because some ideas that seemed really good at the time, have turned out to be monumentally stupid in the hind sight.

Yes, there are a lot of idiots in the governments, and a lot of money runs the show. I respect other people's opinions in this matter, and I stick to mine, and its unfortunate this discussion turned out so sour.

Answer me this question now: Since these bases are allegedly aimed at preventing Asian rogue states' aggression - you dont really think that these are actually for most part used to monitor the activites of Russian military? I mean, this equipment is massive, employing a lot of people - you dont think that the job of these bases is also to defend against Russia? I bet what they do most of the time, especially now that Iran/NK doesnt have the missiles of the range, they just monitor Russia. You have to admit, thats exactly whats happening. When invasion of Iran will happen, will this Polish/Czeck base be dismantled, just like the NATO folding after the Cold War??? BTW, NATO built a similar base in Turkey during the Cold War to monitor Soviet military in Caucasus, it was used during bombing of Iraq throught both wars ;-).

___________________
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:

Yes, there are a lot of idiots in the governments, and a lot of money runs the show. I respect other people's opinions in this matter, and I stick to mine, and its unfortunate this discussion turned out so sour.

That's largely because you've been arguing in the face of all evidence, proof and arguments to the contrary.

The very least you could do is just say, "that is my opinion and I dont need to justify it" instead of collectively insulting the intelligence of all participants in this thread and actually trying to validate what you were saying.

Thanks for wasting our time and patience.

quote:

Answer me this question now: Since these bases are allegedly aimed at preventing Asian rogue states' aggression - you dont really think that these are actually for most part used to monitor the activites of Russian military? I mean, this equipment is massive, employing a lot of people - you dont think that the job of these bases is also to defend against Russia? I bet what they do most of the time, especially now that Iran/NK doesnt have the missiles of the range, they just monitor Russia. You have to admit, thats exactly whats happening. When invasion of Iran will happen, will this Polish/Czeck base be dismantled, just like the NATO folding after the Cold War??? BTW, NATO built a similar base in Turkey during the Cold War to monitor Soviet military in Caucasus, it was used during bombing of Iraq throught both wars ;-).

That's not the argument that I was having with you. I wasn't even talking about any bases. Have you gone completely off the deep end?

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne That's largely because you've been arguing in the face of all evidence, proof and arguments to the contrary. The very least you could do is just say, "that is my opinion and I dont need to justify it" instead of collectively insulting the intelligence of all participants in this thread and actually trying to validate what you were saying. Thanks for wasting our time and patience. That's not the argument that I was having with you. I wasn't even talking about any bases. Have you gone completely off the deep end?

What the hell are you arguing about then? You just came to this thread to insult me (i.e. "you keep getting owned"). Well, dont blame me for insulting you then.

My point is simple - the military bases in Poland, Alaska are monitoring Russia, not NK or Iran because those countries are years away from building long-range ballistic, nuclear warheads capable of flying 15,000 km and hitting their targets precisely. NK, for example, failed in its attempt at a long range missile (and you guys say that Iran got NK's failed technology, hahahahah). So Russia sees this, and it rightfully building much better missiles to counter Star Wars and continuing USA/NATO encroachment around it. This way its sending a message that it will be ready against any missile defense shield or attack. Plus Russia needs some new much better guided, advanced missiles. Its NATO's expansion thats forcing it to really start putting the money from the sale of hydrocarbons into defense because it rightfully sees NATO as the biggest threat to its security, especially when NATO/USA/Europe keep reiterating Cold War threats, criticism of Russia and insults among lies, propaganda and other shit.

___________________
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 What the hell are you arguing about then? You just came to this thread to insult me (i.e. "you keep getting owned"). Well, dont blame me for insulting you then.

We were talking about the advantages of power projection that aircraft carriers provide over nuclear weapons and how it makes more sense to focus on conventional weaponry than building missiles whose feature3s and advnatges will probably be never utilized before they are rusting in silos since any kind of ABM shield is not viable now or in any foreeseeable future.

Whomever you were having an argument with about bases, certainly wasn't me.

By the way, what I said earlier wasn't an insult. It was a statement of fact. If you were insulted by it, I guess the truth struck a little close to home.

quote:

My point is simple - the military bases in Poland, Alaska are monitoring Russia, not NK or Iran because those countries are years away from building long-range ballistic, nuclear warheads capable of flying 15,000 km and hitting their targets precisely. NK, for example, failed in its attempt at a long range missile (and you guys say that Iran got NK's failed technology, hahahahah). So Russia sees this, and it rightfully building much better missiles to counter Star Wars and continuing USA/NATO encroachment around it. This way its sending a message that it will be ready against any missile defense shield or attack. Plus Russia needs some new much better guided, advanced missiles. Its NATO's expansion thats forcing it to really start putting the money from the sale of hydrocarbons into defense because it rightfully sees NATO as the biggest threat to its security, especially when NATO/USA/Europe keep reiterating Cold War threats, criticism of Russia and insults among lies, propaganda and other shit.

I don't know if you've been reading this thread, but ABM shields dont work. I know, it's shocking. Your entire argument is based on the premise that they do. Just thought I should make that clear for about THE TWELFTH TIME now.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne We were talking about the advantages of power projection that aircraft carriers provide over nuclear weapons and how it makes more sense to focus on conventional weaponry than building missiles whose feature3s and advnatges will probably be never utilized before they are rusting in silos since any kind of ABM shield is not viable now or in any foreeseeable future. Whomever you were having an argument with about bases, certainly wasn't me. By the way, what I said earlier wasn't an insult. It was a statement of fact. If you were insulted by it, I guess the truth struck a little close to home. I don't know if you've been reading this thread, but ABM shields dont work. I know, it's shocking. Your entire argument is based on the premise that they do. Just thought I should make that clear for about THE TWELFTH TIME now.

If ABM will not work, and since it doesnt work - what good are the bases in Poland/Alaska then? And for your point, what good are the carriers when they cost a lot of money, they can be seen clearly with a naked eye, they require many ships and powerful anti-aircraft defenses to protect from? How will an aircraft carrier protect a country? They are used for domination, which Russia is not into anymore. The truth is much simpler than you are stating it, I dont understand why you keep slathering away. Unless you are trying to rewrite Russia's foreign policy, which is not your job. Your are just basically trying to be a smartass while the facts speak for themselves - otherwise Russia would have never sold the aircraft carrier to India, kapish???

___________________
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:

If ABM will not work, and since it doesnt work - what good are the bases in Poland/Alaska then? And for your point, what good are the carriers when they cost a lot of money, they can be seen clearly with a naked eye, they require many ships and powerful anti-aircraft defenses to protect from?

You have a curious way of arguing, you take something that has happened or will happen and place on the pedestal as an absolute and unquestionable truth.

Then you point that out to someone and challenge to prove it wrong in some sort of bizarro reverse fashion.

Here, let me demonstrate: "If speaking like a moron is a bad thing then why does President Bush do it? Certainly the most powerful man and leader of the free world knows what he is doing, he didnt get there just like that, so tell me then, why does he speak like an idiot? I challenge you!"

What good is a 300$ bridge in Alaska for 50 people? what good is a 600$ toilet seat? Ah, the mysteries of life.

quote:

How will an aircraft carrier protect a country? They are used for domination, which Russia is not into anymore. The truth is much simpler than you are stating it, I dont understand why you keep slathering away. Unless you are trying to rewrite Russia's foreign policy, which is not your job. Your are just basically trying to be a smartass while the facts speak for themselves - otherwise Russia would have never sold the aircraft carrier to India, kapish???

Uh, aircraft carriers are not really used to "protect" a country, their purpose is to project force. Projecting force is a good thing for a state, because when it projects force, it projects influence.

We already went over this.

I am not arguing that they are trying to diminish their sea power and yes, that's why they sold Gorshkov because it was costing them around 25 million a year to maintain.

What me and a few others are saying is that it's a bad move on their part to abandon force projection and put money towards nucl;ear weapons when there's really no need to. Here, in case you need a refresher - this was the original statement:

-------
Originally posted by occrider

They're not obsolete, they're most certainly operational. The argument to save money might make some sense, however, the justification for upgrading the nuclear arsenal isn't to save money but rather to retain nuclear parity. That doesn't quite make much sense given the circumstances of the situation. Russia's money would be better spent using it on aircraft carriers which can actually project military strength strategically and tactically without the unfortunate and unnecessary byproduct of a nuclear holocaust.
-----------

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne You have a curious way of arguing, you take something that has happened or will happen and place on the pedestal as an absolute and unquestionable truth. Then you point that out to someone and challenge to prove it wrong in some sort of bizarro reverse fashion. Here, let me demonstrate: "If speaking like a moron is a bad thing then why does President Bush do it? Certainly the most powerful man and leader of the free world knows what he is doing, he didnt get there just like that, so tell me then, why does he speak like an idiot? I challenge you!" What good is a 300$ bridge in Alaska for 50 people? what good is a 600$ toilet seat? Ah, the mysteries of life. Uh, aircraft carriers are not really used to "protect" a country, their purpose is to project force. Projecting force is a good thing for a state, because when it projects force, it projects influence. We already went over this. I am not arguing that they are trying to diminish their sea power and yes, that's why they sold Gorshkov because it was costing them around 25 million a year to maintain. What me and a few others are saying is that it's a bad move on their part to abandon force projection and put money towards nucl;ear weapons when there's really no need to. Here, in case you need a refresher - this was the original statement: ------- Originally posted by occrider They're not obsolete, they're most certainly operational. The argument to save money might make some sense, however, the justification for upgrading the nuclear arsenal isn't to save money but rather to retain nuclear parity. That doesn't quite make much sense given the circumstances of the situation. Russia's money would be better spent using it on aircraft carriers which can actually project military strength strategically and tactically without the unfortunate and unnecessary byproduct of a nuclear holocaust. ----------- 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.

So what's wrong with Russia not wanting to project its force around the world? That makes it a great country! Imagine how much money that saves, and how it keeps the world safer from further political conflicts and rivalries. Russia has a better and more effective "force" to project - oil and gas. Aircraft carriers are not necessary anymore. Quite frankly, if they sell the last one, I am for it. Concentrate all freed funds on strategic defense, border control and rebuilding the country.

___________________
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 So what's wrong with Russia not wanting to project its force around the world? That makes it a great country! Imagine how much money that saves, and how it keeps the world safer from further political conflicts and rivalries. Russia has a better and more effective "force" to project - oil and gas. Aircraft carriers are not necessary anymore. Quite frankly, if they sell the last one, I am for it. Concentrate all freed funds on strategic defense, border control and rebuilding the country.

So you're basically advocating for Russia to barricade itself within its own borders and then build more nuclear weapons.

Hey, did you go to Dr. Nick Rivera's Hollywood School for International Relations?

In an age of globalization, isolationism is a policy that results in states like North Korea. One cannot simply withdraw into their borders, one has to actively project influence around the world to secure and protect its own interests. It doesn't happen if Russia just sits around within its own borders and "rebuild"