Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: lupinus on March 17, 2009, 05:30:10 PM
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7947824.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7947824.stm)
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said Moscow will begin a comprehensive military rearmament from 2011.
Mr Medvedev said the primary task would be to "increase the combat readiness of [Russia's] forces, first of all our strategic nuclear forces".
Somehow I don't see the big'O reacting to this in any way that conveys a message of "Don't muck with us." I also somehow doubt that Obama will match.....not that we have any money left over after his pet projects.
In short, lots of new spending and modernisation. Partly due to things their invading Georgia uncovered, partly in response to things such as missile shield and Nato actions.
-
The "appropriate" liberal response -
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/03/17/gates_readies_big_cuts_in_weapons/ (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/03/17/gates_readies_big_cuts_in_weapons/)
Gates readies big cuts in weapons
WASHINGTON - As the Bush administration was drawing to a close, Robert M. Gates, whose two years as defense secretary had been devoted to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, felt compelled to warn his successor of a crisis closer to home.
The United States "cannot expect to eliminate national security risks through higher defense budgets, to do everything and buy everything," Gates said. The next defense secretary, he warned, would have to eliminate some costly hardware and invest in new tools for fighting insurgents.
What Gates didn't know was that he would be that successor.
Now, as the only Bush Cabinet member to remain under President Obama, Gates is preparing the most far-reaching changes in the Pentagon's weapons portfolio since the end of the Cold War, according to aides.
(cont)
-
I also somehow doubt that Obama will match..
Match... what? Even if all these increases go through, Russia will still be hopelessly outnumbered and outclasses. Half their MiG-29's can't even fly. They're planning on 3 more aircraft carriers. THat'll give them four carriers (one of them has parts falling off) to America's 15.
-
Nukes capable of reaching America are all that really matter.
-
Match... what? Even if all these increases go through, Russia will still be hopelessly outnumbered and outclasses. Half their MiG-29's can't even fly. They're planning on 3 more aircraft carriers. That'll give them four carriers (one of them has parts falling off) to America's 15.
You don't need to out number the carrier when you have enough planes to launch missiles said carriers can't counter. Carriers are great for projecting force and sending a whole lot of whoop ass in one neat package, but it still takes a lot more then that to win a war.
Outclassed yes, but enough that if they wanted to really cause trouble we could stop them without a large effort? Outnumbered....not so much. In the air and on the sea maybe, but not on the ground.
-
We've always been at war with Eurasia...
This is over the arctic oil reserves and diamond fields.
-
So long as I can get decent razor blades and read to my hearts content I say bring it on =D
-
That's the thing about nukes. You have them, and nothing else really matters.
-
In the air and on the sea maybe, but not on the ground.
The Russian Ground Forces comprise 395,000 men, including 35,000 VDV troops. Of these men, almost 190,000 are conscripts. The Russian Army runs on a ratio of one officer per four enlisted men, as opposed to one officer per fifteen enlisted men, as in the West. Russian Army troops keep defecting and deserting because of starvation. 1000 Russian troops die or commit suicide every year due to abuse.
The Regular Army of the United States fields 547,000 men and women, professionals one and all. And if that isn't enough, America has the Marines
-
The Russian army wasn't in to good a shape in the late 30's either. Don't discount enough conscripts that know what awaits them if they run off the battle field. A large population means a lot of soldiers quickly.
Yes, man for man we beat them. Hell, better then that even. But you forget the majority of the west no longer has any stomach for war.
The west is horrified over a few dozen casualties. Imagine the uproar the next time we get into a war with a half decent opponent (Russia or otherwise) and we take a few hundred or a few thousand in one decent sized battle. They no longer have to be better then us, they just have to be willing to kill and last longer then we will before pulling back.
-
The problem is not just that Russia's army is smaller. It's also incompetent and horridly trained.
Because I am a Russian speaker, I read a lot of Russian sites on guns, Army training, etc. If you like, I will translate for you articles from the Russian media, written by Russian military officers about the state in which their Army is.
It's not about challenging America, it's about giving their people a decent national defense.
-
Did anyone else read this as retirement plan and were very confused for a minute?
-
Obama just responded.
At this pivotal moment in world history, at a time of renewed understanding between our two great nations, the people of the United States would ask that the Russian leadership reconsider their recently-announced plan for rearmament. Studies have shown that, if you have nuclear weapons in your arsenal, you are more likely to have the nuclear weapons taken away from you and used against you by an attacker. The safest policy is non-resistance and to attempt to build a dialog.
And if you all don't stop this right now - we want our overcharge button back.
-
The problem is not just that Russia's army is smaller. It's also incompetent and horridly trained.
Because I am a Russian speaker, I read a lot of Russian sites on guns, Army training, etc. If you like, I will translate for you articles from the Russian media, written by Russian military officers about the state in which their Army is.
It's not about challenging America, it's about giving their people a decent national defense.
%99 of everyone in a Russian uniform can be an utter blithering idiot, and if they have functional nukes capable of reaching the US it just doesn't matter.
-
China may have as many as 20 million men at arms in its various military and paramilitary forces. The numbers don't tell the whole story.
-
20 million men at arms? That's one heckuva big Parliament. :O
-
...The west is horrified over a few dozen casualties. Imagine the uproar the next time we get into a war with a half decent opponent (Russia or otherwise) and we take a few hundred or a few thousand in one decent sized battle. They no longer have to be better then us, they just have to be willing to kill and last longer then we will before pulling back.
Repeated for truth!
And in this case the Truth will not set us free.
-
20 million men at arms? That's one heckuva big Parliament. :O
China has many levels of "reserves" coming from every segment of life there. Think Airforce/Navy marksmanship training for basic recruits, now take away Airforce/Navy and replace it with "Orientation week at veterinary school" or some such thing. In theory service is mandatory, but they have a surplus of volunteers.
Maybe 10% of that 20 million number is anything close to what we'd consider "reserves". i.e. people the PLA could get into a gun, ammo, and a uniform, maybe some other gear. However, they have no way to get them anywhere, or supply them away from their homes for any length of time. The active PLA is about 2.5 million. That's still a heck of a lot of Chinamen... :O However that covers all branches of their military, Army, Air-Force, Navy, and Marines, and whatever other branches they see themselves as having.
In essence the "20 Million" number is a propaganda tool created by being very generous, counting every Chinese person who ever marched and carried a rifle. Maybe even the "young pioneers" shooting airguns at Mao-camp or whatever it's called there.
Then assuming something close to the usual 90/10% split between logistical functions and actual trigger-pullers, that puts them around 250,000 people serving as active combat-arms positions. Of course those are huge assumptions on my part, but I could be off by an order of magnitude and it's still way under the "20 Million" number people bandy about as being "China's Military".
-
%99 of everyone in a Russian uniform can be an utter blithering idiot, and if they have functional nukes capable of reaching the US it just doesn't matter.
On this logic they don't need any rearmament. =D
-
On this logic they don't need any rearmament. =D
Nukes/ICBM's and IRBM's take a lot of maintenence and upkeep. And depending on the types of devices, there are radiological half lives of Tritium neutron enhancers in implosion fission "pits". And Neutron bombardment/saturation or outright transmutation of certain other key parts parts of the "pit" that can screw up a bomb's yield, or cause an outright "fizzle".
-
We've always been at war with Eurasia...
I heard it was Eastasia
-
>And if that isn't enough, America has the Marines<
Yes, but we were talking about the advantages the US has... :laugh:
-
I heard it was Eastasia
Off to Room 101 with you!
-
China has many levels of "reserves" coming from every segment of life there. Think Airforce/Navy marksmanship training for basic recruits, now take away Airforce/Navy and replace it with "Orientation week at veterinary school" or some such thing. In theory service is mandatory, but they have a surplus of volunteers.
Thats why I phrased what I posted as I did. They have a lot of different paramilitary forces, some more like our police forces, others more like what we might think of as militias. The level of training and armaments varies widely. As I understand it, many of their paramilitary forces are not armed at all.
Heck, North Korea supposedly has around a million men at arms.
-
Repeated for truth!
And in this case the Truth will not set us free.
The saddest part? It will eventually happen. Regardless of it being Russia, China, or another country. Major wars with real opponents will come again, and we may not see WW2 type casualties but a few hundred to a few thousand a week in a decent battle? Not just possible, probable for our future. And most of America simply wouldn't stomach it.
-
Obama just responded.
Sorry what? "Studies have shown that...."?!? History shows something else entirely!
The saddest part? It will eventually happen. Regardless of it being Russia, China, or another country. Major wars with real opponents will come again, and we may not see WW2 type casualties but a few hundred to a few thousand a week in a decent battle? Not just possible, probable for our future. And most of America simply wouldn't stomach it.
Perhaps - but to rephrase Stalin one or two deaths is a tragedy shown on that evenings news bulletin together with weeping family members, service funerals, tearful eulogies and regrets in Parliament. A thousand deaths is a minute long news bulletin.
-
In Stalins day America didn't run when a few service men were killed and the media didn't go on and on about huge casualties that are, compared to history, very low.
-
In Stalins day America didn't run when a few service men were killed and the media didn't go on and on about huge casualties that are, compared to history, very low.
This is neither Stalin's day for Russia, nor FDR's day for the US, nor Churchill's day for England.
Each of these countries have been drastically affected by media saturation and increased democratic influence... for good or ill.
-
The Regular Army of the United States fields 547,000 men and women, professionals one and all. And if that isn't enough, America has the Marines
547,000 Regular Army? Not including Reserves and/or National Guard?
That number sounds VERY high to me. Got a source citation?
-
547,000 Regular Army? Not including Reserves and/or National Guard?
That number sounds VERY high to me. Got a source citation?
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst0809.pdf
-edit-
Oops, forgot to scroll down.
544,000 or so as of Sept. '08, so not too far off.
-
>And if that isn't enough, America has the Marines<
Yes, but we were talking about the advantages the US has... :laugh:
Dude- that's cold! :laugh:
As a former Marine, I just have to respond. One Marine squad on the border will end any problems with them. I know because that's what they taught me at PI. =D
But, as I recall, didn't we win the cold war by out-spending them. Is their economy any better than it was back then? [Of course, ours is worse, but we are currently being stimulated.]
-
[Of course, ours is worse, but we are currently being stimulated.]
Ahhhhh...
<drools>
Stimulated...
-
So.....preemptive strike?..... =|
At least then all those guys preparing for TEOTWAWKI can start using all that cool stuff they've been stockpiling.... :rolleyes:
-
Sorry what? "Studies have shown that...."?!? History shows something else entirely!
Ahem. My above comment was Faux-bama, spoofing the "logic" of gun control. Had it been a real comment by Barack Obama, you would have heard a series of uh's intercalated with words, followed by the drooling of media lap dogs.
Re: "Men at arms"
I thought a man at arms was an office held by a member of a legislative body. I think the phrase we are looking for is "men under arms."
-
Re: "Men at arms"
I thought a man at arms was an office held by a member of a legislative body. I think the phrase we are looking for is "men under arms."
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freewebs.com%2Fchetts%2FMan-At-Arms.jpg&hash=54c4ae0e020ef406a1bdea587d6572a0672e5b2e)
-
One of He-Man's posse, correct? :lol:
-
Sorry 209: I simply could NOT resist the shot.
After all... I can't ALWAYS make fun of Gewehr, after all...
-
Ahem. My above comment was Faux-bama, spoofing the "logic" of gun control. Had it been a real comment by Barack Obama, you would have heard a series of uh's intercalated with words, followed by the drooling of media lap dogs.
Re: "Men at arms"
I thought a man at arms was an office held by a member of a legislative body. I think the phrase we are looking for is "men under arms."
Umm, Sergeant at Arms is not a member of a legislative body, but the person charged with keeping order at meetings.
-
Of course Russia is rearming. The world's single superpower is in the process of shooting itself in the head, and somebody is going to have to take over the job. Might as well be Russia, right?
-
*YAWN*
...get back to me when Russia is COMPLETING carriers, instead of selling them off to the Chinese, the Rooskie nuke subs aren't in danger of sinking at the pier, and their tank companies aren;t cutting up and selling their tanks for scrap to get food money....
-
Umm, Sergeant at Arms is not a member of a legislative body, but the person charged with keeping order at meetings.
Oops. Yes, I was thinking sergeant at arms, who is apparently not a member of the body. At least not in the U.S.