of course, here I'll walk you through it since you are getting confused trying to follow along 2 posts:

you stated:

I read it and replied:

Seems to me that Russia grew balls after Ed Snowden started hanging out there.

Conspiracy theorists, where are you? :disgust

I was thinking the same thing :winkwink:

Perhaps in all that data Snowden stole from us, and gave to Russia, there were some serious deficiencies in our defenses that we ( the public ) don't know about yet. Maybe enough that, after being embarrassed in front of the world during the last Olympics Putin is saying "fuck it, I'm getting old, I know their weaknesses, let's do this!" ?

Wrong again
They do have one aircraft carrier

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...hkuznetzov.gif

http://russian-ships.info/eng/today/

14 SSBN's, that's enough to take out the eastern sea board and that's if only a small % of them get thru.

3 heavy guided missile cruisers, those are damn big

They have a new class of SSBN, that's what we call a BOOMER, has 16 ICBM's on it.

I was saying that because I was part of the front line.

I never learned much about land based weapons, but at the time of the cold war, I knew more than you can dig up about the soviet fleet.

get your gear dogg you need to train gfy. :helpme:helpme my guns are still warm :1orglaugh no issues with me shooting. im ready :2 cents: :thumbsup

LOL@ the "russia cant touch the USA they are too far behind, the USA holds a monopoly on intelligence" crew :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

reality: a few arabs flew some planes in to WTC and the USA is basically like israel now :1orglaugh

so the US army spent trillions developing your i-defense system brought to you by the same government that made your i-healthcare and your i-education...I mean its bound to be great isnt it? :1orglaugh

the russians do not even have to deliver 1% of their nukes on your soil you will still end up like "the walking dead" because americans have thin skin, the end...

not to mention bacterial weapons that the russians have 1000%...you are a stupid mother fucker if you think for one single second that such a plan is not already in place, just in case the nukes dont make it...an amp of bacteria is not hard to smuggle across...

reality: the whole US army is worthless against russia...be nice to putin and bully the little countries only, stay away from the big boys and you will be fine :2 cents:

Because "big boys" you refer to are afraid of Gay people and don't allow cursing in music & TV right? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

It's all propaganda. All of our governments do this. As common people we should not be so easily manipulated and be sure to keep our own minds :thumbsup

of course there are mutually assured destruction plans.


we have plenty too,, whoopie.

and you think Americans would have thin skin over a 1% nuke attack? what blast crater have you been living in?





Don't get me wrong, I like Russians and am dissapointed in having to cancel a forthcoming trip there. And I am certainly against war and violence.

But my initial point still stands, since perestroika, Russia has fallen even farther behind with its military tech and might than before it while all we;ve done is grow ours exponentially. For example, the 500+ military bases we have surrounding Russia.

etc,. et al, on & on. I could go on & on, this is 2014, you can't get away with the bullshit kruschev and the other knuckleheads bullshitted US and the world with re: your military ability during the pre-perstroika cold war.

Do you really think that aircraft carriers are so important nowadays? Especially for a deeply continental country like Russia which is not surrounded by oceans. Yeah they were extremely powerful thing in the middle of 20th century. They also very useful in conflicts with small banana countries. In case of military conflicts with nuclear countries they just useless.

Vendzilla, as a former sailor, you must know that both former Soviet Union and modern Russia have the same military doctrine on aircraft carriers: tactical nukes and nothing else. The real war against superpowers will be all about nuclear missiles. Russia and the States have almost the same amount of strategic nukes. However Russia has a way more tactical ones, because it's a continental country and must be ready to fight against any potential enemy right near its border on even inside (e.g. "Базальт", "Вулкан", "Яхонт/Оникс" for sea launch and "Точка-У", "Искандер" etc for land launch).

fiddy gfy troops

My job in the Navy had me studying the Soviet Navy, I knew all about their armament, crew size, propulsion, most everything the US knew about the Soviet fleet, I had access to.

Our tech I believe is beyond what their's is then and now, back then, they had a lot more of it. Their radar for instance I believe was better than ours, but that's all changed because of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan , war dollars means more upgrades.

Aircraft carriers have a major purpose in any chess game the president might play, no country wants one off their shore if they have a problem with the US. I got to tour the USS RONALD REAGAN when my daughter was assigned to it. Great ship and a force to be reckoned with!

Cyberseo, also, an aircraft carrier is part of a carrier battle group, which has quite the tactical nuclear weapons payload spread out over ships and subs.

I see what you are talking about but.. the price of what tactical nuke missile like "Яхонт" (SS-N-26 Strobile) is nothing comparing to the USS which will be sink with 99% probability (it's almost impossible to intercept something that flies 10 meters under water with 720 m/s speed) :2 cents:

The problem with your theory there is if it ever came to that the nukes would be flying. In this day an age there is always the possibility that the US could lose a carrier group by surprise attack of some sort.

However it would almost certainly only come by way of submarine attack using a nuclear warhead. If that happened it would be considered the same as a nuclear attack on US soil and the counter attack would be more than appropriate.

We however have 10 carrier groups the last I looked and I'm pretty sure any single one of them has enough nuclear warheads among their ships to take out all the major population centers with-in Russia or where ever and this doesn't even include nuclear equipped subs not attached to the carrier groups, which is the bulk of our sub fleet.

Attacking a US carrier group in that manor would essentially be the mutually assured destruction.

lol too funny.

Russia is also tight with China and China with North Korea so if war does break out we can count those 3 plus 90% of the middle east; Venezuela and Cuba to be some of the opponent

proxy wars have defined the cold war along with nuclear weapons proliferation.

Seems you didn't get it again. One tactical nuke should be enough for a whole battle group (because it's a nuke). On the other hand, it just plain stupid to use nukes against small aircraft carrier killer ships like "Москва" or "Накат". It's like a big elephant vs the .600 Overkill. Different sizes, different "prices" but not a single chance for a big one :2 cents:

You asked a question
I was trying to inform you that a carrier is a part of a larger contigent, helping you.

The funny thing about this? I want you to keep your head in the sand. Keep thinking your shit is 2014, why would I want a potential enemy to realize they are far behind with their military and military tech?

my initial post along that line was to lol at the first dumbass who thinks the topol would be effective against NATO forces in Europe.

So, carry on with your thinking y'all are 2014 and got your military on full lock. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

As I said above, it case if the US aircraft carrier group will attack Russian forces (with regular weapon or with nuclear ones - doesn't matter), it will be immediately destroyed with the tactical nukes. That's the Russian military doctrine. We just just no other weapon than nukes against the aircraft carrier group. The US military are not stupid and they know it too. So ANY real use of an aircraft carrier group against Russia means a total mutually assured destruction with 100% guarantee. There are no doubts about that.

Excuse me.. Do you mean that NATO or any other forces are able to intercept Topol-M after the launch? Are you kidding me? :upsidedow

of course not. jeez, if y'all are going to start throwing weapons systems in the argument at least know the system and it's effective abilities and shortcomings and what it's designed and setup to do.

It's very hard to hit a bullet with another bullet. If you think that's easy, then you live in some fantasy world (I don't know what do you smoke, but it must be a real strong shit :)) There are no faster missile than ICBM. The only way to intercept it is to hit the launch system on the start. Topol-M needs less than 2 minutes to launch an ICBM from anywhere. It just can't be intercepted on a march (speed: 7,3 kilometers per second):

read up on the Topol, a 3 stage INTERCONTINENTAL nuclear weapon with a MINIMUM range of 2000 kilometers.

Yes, it is an ICBM and it's made to hit other continents or distant countries. I.e it targets the EU countries, the USA/Canada etc but not Moscow or Novgorod. So I didn't get your post, really.

When will the first GFY-er kill another GFY-er?
Civil wars, attacking neigbouring countries, threatning, showing muscles. propaganda.
And that all for a 'revolution' most people know nothing about and don't care about.

from all accounts, it's a weapon designed, built and tasked to strike the USA. Its 10 separate nuclear weapons warhead combined with a minimum striking distance make it a non-weapon against NATO forces due to the minimum distances required, including taking into account nuclear fallout. you can't use the weapon to strike an adversary within 2000km of your border, that covers Europe/NATO.

IN short, It's not a weapon designed to be deployed against local forces, i.e., Euro NATO forces.

Sorry, didn't get it again. I know it was initially designed to hit the States, but... do you know how many kilometers between Siberia and any random EU country?

Hint: try Google maps.

P.S. As about weapon for neighbor countries. Google "Искандер" (SS-26 Stone) for example.

again, I have no compelling reason to get you to believe that your tech is not uptodate/current, effective, etc. So sure, let's go with the notion that Russian military will drive those mobile topol trucks to Siberia so they can launch nukes to the border nations and then watch the nuclear fall out cover a nice chunk of Russia.

800 kilotons of nuke on that topol and your'e gonna drop more than 1 on your neighbors.

http://www.nucleardarkness.org/inclu..._firestorm.jpg

so you really think if 1 carrier group got nuked out of the water our government would end civilization on this planet by launching a ton of nuked at russia so they would have to launch a ton at the usa and all nato counties also ?

end the world over 1 carrier group ?

i dont think so.

i hope it never happens tho would be some scary shit :2 cents::2 cents::2 cents:

see the fallout prediction maps for an 800kt nuclear detonation for yourself

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/


Estimated total-dose fallout contours for a 800 kiloton surface burst with a 15 mph wind: ▼
Fallout contour for 1 rads per hour:
Maximum downwind cloud distance: 388 km
Maximum width: 87.4 km
Approximate area affected: 27,300 km²
Fallout contour for 10 rads per hour:
Maximum downwind cloud distance: 286 km
Maximum width: 61.5 km
Approximate area affected: 14,360 km²
Fallout contour for 100 rads per hour:
Maximum downwind cloud distance: 184 km
Maximum width: 35.7 km
Approximate area affected: 5,540 km²
Fallout contour for 1,000 rads per hour:
Maximum downwind cloud distance: 82.1 km
Maximum width: 9.81 km
Approximate area affected: 831 km²
Fallout windsock is 7 km from ground zero. C

Well, you would have to close enough to use it, would be hard considering the sonar in the US is far better than that of Russia. Carriers always travel in groups. The computer on the carrier can orchestrate the weapons of all the ships in it's group for it's protection. And if you are that close, would you really want to shoot a nuke? The distance one of those can travel is limited.

Which is why the US doesn't use nuke torpedo's

Subroc made better sense

Drive? They are already there (e.g. Иркутск)

You are too overestimate the danger of radioactive contamination. The modern nukes use the power of chain reaction very effective. It almost fully converts into a blast wave, heat, light and rigid radioactivity. So the contamination is minimal. E.g. one Chernobyl was worse than 1000 blasts of strategic nukes. Not by destruction (it was just a steam-gas explosion), but by the radioactive contamination. If you want, I can explain the Chernobyl case more detailed.

Both our countries made a countless test nuclear blasts on their own territories and, as you may note, you and me are still alive :) E.g.:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Dog%29_002.jpg http://archure.net/p/NV_Nuke.jpg http://lensbased.net/blog/wp-content.../vegas_vic.jpg

There is a mistake in my post above (it was 2am here when I wrote it :)). Of course I was talking about cruise missiles (10 meters above the water, not under :)). So it doesn't have to be launched for a close distention. For example, the operational range of "Яхонт" (SS-N-26 Strobile) is 120..300 km. However its price is just uncomfortable with a price of aircraft carrier group.

Sorry for such a stupid confusion.

just out of curiosity: all this conversation about weapons is about stuff you know and public knows what about shit we do not know?

as much science fiction it may sounds how about intercepting missile with:

1. some laser (we don't know about it ofc but they may have it)
2. with coil gun (we know they have one cuz they let us know they have it)
3. with ionized with electricity gas "bullet" (tesla invention that supposedly (according to tesla's words) is so effective that it would stop war at all - and we all know tesla's jurnal is in possession of US)
4. now i know it may sounds very laughable but again i'm talking about SF: what about missile destroyed in the air by microwave effect caused by HAARP?

you've got better weapons that are actually designed and in place. but, sure, there's no law against your launching a topol from siberia to ukraine, but, your government has weapons actually designed for that purpose,

the fallout map predictions are realistic and based on current nuclear tech and it show all fallout moving towards russia from any nuclear detonation in Europe, due to prevailing winds. 100s of square miles of radioactive fallout, and you and I both know since the cloud of an 800kt nuke doesn't reach high enough altitude for the radioactive debris to decay before it falls back to earth, so an 800kt debris cloud is potentially more deadly than say, the tzar bomb fallout.

so if you and the other guy want to think it makes sense to use topols in close range nuclar strikes, and disagree that the nuclear fallout is of no importance to russians, who am I to argue.

This.......
http://www.quotehd.com/imagequotes/T...-be-fought.jpg

fact: your aircraft carriers and fancy planes are worth their weigh in scrap metal against bacteria...YES you would win IF they decided to fight you the ancient sticks and stones way...but only a stupid mother fucker without bacteria would fight you that way LOL

your military is only for 3rd world countries, americans have thin skin and are not ready for a real war of any type...