MH17 crash: Victims' families sue Putin and Russia

[Slant]

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/13/...an-ii-missile/



The USA is afraid of the nuclear option. Your government would squirm and twist, but stay out of the Baltics.

So is yours. Hence MAD, which apparently still is a viable strategy. Especially since some people, not naming any names, don't seem to get the hang of modern diplomacy, reason or lacking that, common sense and survival instinct.

I mean seriously, the only fucking way you're going to win this argument OR a war with this in mind is if you're actually Klingon and not just accept Death, but embrace it like it's the last woman on Earth and she's horny for you. That's really, the only conceivable scenario in which I'd actually give you a point for the argument you're making.

- - - Updated - - -

Can't help but notice that Russia looks like a GIANT fish, biting into a person's arse (Spain is the head, squint if you don't see it).

I'd really love to hear what stories your psychiatrist has to tell about you and blotches on paper.

[Skroe]

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/13/...an-ii-missile/



The USA is afraid of the nuclear option. Your government would squirm and twist, but stay out of the Baltics.

Left out this part, genius.

So, while the RS-28 probably does represent an improvement to an existing Russian missile, it still replaces a comparable system. And that means the RS-28 isn’t a change in Russian nuclear posture, it’s a continuation. Russia has long placed a substantial fraction of its warheads on so-called heavy ICBMs. The RS-28 indicates that we shouldn’t expect that to change.

The love of heavy ICBMs is a Russian thing. Heavy ICBMs, particularly liquid-fueled ones like the RS-28, have advantages and disadvantages. Such a missile might be able to carry a large number of nuclear warheads, but it must be based in an underground silo. That makes all those warheads sitting in one spot an attractive target. Liquid fuel, too, is not easy to handle. And keeping the missiles on constant alert can be tricky, something that Bill Clinton learned when he was governor of Arkansas. There is no support in the United States Air Force for revisiting liquid-fueled missiles.

The Russian Strategic Rocket Forces, however, feel differently. To them, heavy ICBMs are Viagra mixed with vodka. The Russians want to keep a lot of nuclear warheads, and its gets very expensive building a missile for each and every warhead. Even when Russia was flush with oil revenue, there wasn’t enough money to fully replace Soviet systems. As a result, the Russians have built a smaller number of modern missiles and packed them with as many warheads as possible. The United States has taken the opposite approach — spreading warheads across a much larger number of missiles on land and at sea.

Most American analysts, including myself, think the Russians are crazy for putting so many eggs, so to speak, in so few baskets. It’s highly destabilizing, too. Consider the problem at hand: If one missile can destroy 10 targets, the Russians have an incentive to use nuclear weapons first. And if the U.S. president can protect those 10 targets by blowing up just one missile, then it gives Washington a further incentive to use nuclear weapons first. Multiple warheads favor the side that shoots first, which is the very definition of instability. That’s the view in the United States at least. In Moscow, I would probably be laughed out of the room as the kind of guy who has a tiny … dog.

So while the RS-28 is not, in itself, a dramatic change in the threat to the United States, it does represent a very dangerous Russian habit. It would be better if we could persuade the Russians not to do this.

Giant ICBMs are stupid. Giant liquid fueled ICBMs are even stupider. Want to know why? You can't keep volatile chemicals in the fuel tank. You need typically on the order of 2 hours to fuel up a large missile or rocket. And they typically need to be defueled within a day. This is why the US uses solids, as Russia does most other places. They're cheaper to own and faster/safer to use.

This rocket is just so Freudian of Russia... desperately needing to compensate for something.

But hey, it's shit like this that money can waste their money on. Meanwhile under NewSTART, the US gets to field the full 1550 warheads on 700 launchers (the treaty max limit) while Russia fields 1550 warheads on about 450 (250 below cap). So if they want to shoot themselves in the foot, I hope they have a blast.

I actually linked this article a few days ago, lol....

[Cybran]

I mean seriously, the only fucking way you're going to win this argument OR a war with this in mind is if you're actually Klingon and not just accept Death, but embrace it like it's the last woman on Earth and she's horny for you.

http://observer.com/2016/05/at-mosco...trust-the-u-s/

To some, the RS-24 Yars is known as “Solomonov’s nuclear missile”—named after its inventor, Yury Solomonov.

“Remarkable, that on one of his office walls there is a map of the United States,” the reporter shared his surprise.

“The United States of America was an explicit and implicit opponent of the Soviet Union,” the 70-year-old Mr. Solomonov explained to the reporter, displaying a Star of the Hero of the Labor of the Russian Federation on his chest. “The United States, from the point of its territorial position, has not changed its location on the geographical map and because of this, the map continues to fulfill its informative function so we won’t forget where the United States is.”

If Russia enters Estonia the USA will have to stay down. If they make a move their cities will be wiped of the face of the planet. Are 1 million insignificant Estonians worth the end of the world?

They are not.

[Slant]

I actually linked this article a few days ago, lol....

I actually read that a few days ago. But then, I wonder how many actually read through these walls of texts. Not just yours, but some people write a lot of sensible things and it's so fucking wasted on the plebs here... :P

[Skroe]

I actually read that a few days ago. But then, I wonder how many actually read through these walls of texts. Not just yours, but some people write a lot of sensible things and it's so fucking wasted on the plebs here... :P

Lol I know. I mean I know you and a bunch of others read. I don't expect many to though. Least of all Cybran.

The guy's some kind of weird pan-slavic nationalist that mist the memo that nobody slaughters slavs like other slavs. Heck that's basically one third of European history right there. Slavs butchering slavs.

[Cybran]

I actually read that a few days ago. But then, I wonder how many actually read through these walls of texts. Not just yours, but some people write a lot of sensible things and it's so fucking wasted on the plebs here... :P

No one reads that shit. He also ignored the main point of the argument being made "Russia is at an disadvantage and will have to strike first and strike hard or lose" this makes any American provocation potentially catastrophic.

This is why the USA will stand down like they do in Ukraine.

[Marcellus1986]

http://observer.com/2016/05/at-mosco...trust-the-u-s/



If Russia enters Estonia the USA will have to stay down. If they make a move their cities will be wiped of the face of the planet. Are 1 million insignificant Estonians worth the end of the world?

They are not.

Lol yeah. NATO will wipe the floor with Russia and Putin won't have the balls to touch his nukes. Russia will be incinerated if he even tries it, then we can just move in and take the resources.

[Slant]

http://observer.com/2016/05/at-mosco...trust-the-u-s/



If Russia enters Estonia the USA will have to stay down. If they make a move their cities will be wiped of the face of the planet. Are 1 million insignificant Estonians worth the end of the world?

They are not.

Wow... did you just openly state that you'd expect Russia to do the first strike? Ok, at least you're honest about it. So can we debunk the idea that missile defenses around the EU perimeter is an offensive move and call it for what it is? A precaution against the type of thinking you're displaying?

And next on the agenda: The world will bow down to the might of the Russian armed forces! Let's just assume, theoretically, that Russia doesn't get lost on their way to Estonia. They sack the entire country, which automatically activates NATO. And yes, this is not optional. It's not that the US can decide to just ignore it. They are automatically at war. Instantly. No congress session required. They signed this decades ago, they agreed with it. So did the majority of Western Europe.

So are 1 million Estonians worth it? I don't know, ask the Americans who said "Yep, you're cool, join the club and we'll keep you safe". Apparently they thought those 1 million Estonians were worth it.

[Skroe]

http://observer.com/2016/05/at-mosco...trust-the-u-s/

If Russia enters Estonia the USA will have to stay down. If they make a move their cities will be wiped of the face of the planet. Are 1 million insignificant Estonians worth the end of the world?

They are not.

They are. They certainly are. And so is the principle of collective defense. It's worth everything. Our word to defend them is our word. No Russian soldier who steps into Estonia or the other Baltics gets to leave of their own accord. NATO was there for us after 9/11. The activated Article V. The US would rally the world and stop Russia. Collective defense is not an empty promise.

And it wouldn't be the end of the world in any event.

[Cybran]

They sack the entire country, which automatically activates NATO. And yes, this is not optional. It's not that the US can decide to just ignore it. They are automatically at war. Instantly. No congress session required. They signed this decades ago, they agreed with it. So did the majority of Western Europe..

The Turks tried this shit twice in the last 3 years and the clinically dead NATO alliance refused to move. NATO is a hallow pyramid scheme to sell american scrap metal of Eastern Europeans. Nothing more.

[Skroe]

No one reads that shit. He also ignored the main point of the argument being made "Russia is at an disadvantage and will have to strike first and strike hard or lose" this makes any American provocation potentially catastrophic.

This is why the USA will stand down like they do in Ukraine.

Many people do. You don't. But you're a thoroughly dishonest person and I don't expect you to.

And I did address the main point. The expanded quoted section put the part you quoted in context. You were selectively quoting to be sensational.

Except I read the article days ago and even posted it here.

- - - Updated - - -

The Turks tried this shit twice in the last 3 years and the clinically dead NATO alliance refused to moved. NATO is a hallow pyramid scheme to sell american scrap metal of Eastern Europeans. Nothing more.

... the Turks didn't demand either Article IV or V. Now you're just making shit up.

And that clinically dead alliance is sure building up in Europe by the way. Nice Romania Ballistic Missile Defense base tied to a Turkish radar by the way.

[Cerilis]

The russkis sure got agitated about that bullshit idea.

[Skroe]

The russkis sure got agitated about that bullshit idea.

They can't help themselves.

"Looking strong" is the only thing they have.

We need a new slang phrase for the Russian Putin patsies. I like Russkis but its too general. We used to call them 'Reds'. How about the "Pooties"? or something ridiculous.

[Slant]

No one reads that shit. He also ignored the main point of the argument being made "Russia is at an disadvantage and will have to strike first and strike hard or lose" this makes any American provocation potentially catastrophic.

This is why the USA will stand down like they do in Ukraine.

Russia is not at a disadvantage if they sit tight and stop being idiots. The US defeated the Soviet Union without firing one bullet, simply by out-economying the USSR and matching whatever numbers the USSR built of whatever type of equipment, be it rifles or ICBMs. They just matched the number, that's it. Russia kept raising the pot, the US kept calling the bluff. Until Russia had no more money to raise the pot and just gave up. And as it turns out, the US hasn't even taken a sweat during all of this.

How is it not clear that Russia will fail again, in pretty much the same manner? Putin is really all that is keeping your country together at the moment. He and his wild nationalism. Once he's gone, who's going to give your country direction? When you realise that nobody on the whole fucking planet actually gives a shit about Russia, what will you do then? Nobody wants your dumbass cold tundra. Nobody wants the little oil you have. Nobody wants your tech, your culture or your money (that you borrowed from someone else).

You literally have NOTHING except yourself. And you have to fear no outside attack, conquest or anything else other than us trying to swindle you out of the little money you have. But wars tend to disable that option, so THAT is why nobody is interested in an actual war. Of course, if Russia does make a first strike, nobody cares about the peanuts we get from Russia and the gloves come off, but for once on your time on this forum, can you acknowledge that what you're talking about is utter insanity?

I wish you'd read Skroes posts for the informational value they have instead of just looking for tidbits that you can refute (or at least attempt to). If you actually listened instead of being stubborn, you'd see many things where the US isn't doing everything perfectly. But you're just attacking Skroe's argument right in the spot where he's strongest... that's just bloody daft. And stubborn.

- - - Updated - - -

The Turks tried this shit twice in the last 3 years and the clinically dead NATO alliance refused to move. NATO is a hallow pyramid scheme to sell american scrap metal of Eastern Europeans. Nothing more.

Huh? Turkey asked for consultations, which they got. Twice. They never once asked to invoke the actual defense article. Do you know how to read the NATO treaty? I mean, you only need to go as far as 5 paragraphs to understand the basic idea. If you can't even do that, wtf are you doing here?

[Kontinuum]

Nice Romania Ballistic Missile Defense base tied to a Turkish radar by the way.

Bulgarian Foreign Minister Daniel Mitov has said Bulgaria is exploring options to take part in a joint standing maritime group of NATO in the Black Sea.

Talks are being carried out with Romania and Turkey, he has told journalists while in Brussels.

http://www.novinite.com/articles/174...omania,+Turkey
Cybran is surely getting triggered

[Cybran]

Russia is not at a disadvantage if they sit tight and stop being idiots.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...t-Estonia.html

So here are the sombre facts: no American or Nato soldiers are permanently defending the Baltics; these countries could not protect themselves; if the worst happens, Nato would not be able to reinforce them. Does this mean that Mr Ilves is right and Nato should permanently station a brigade while it has the chance?

The problem is that Russia would regard this as a grave escalation. Before you start climbing the escalatory ladder, you must be sure that your adversary will not go three or four rungs higher. It’s safe to assume that Mr Putin would always be willing to climb further than the West, so Russia would inevitably win a game of escalation.

Where does this leave us? During the Cold War, Nato assumed that a Soviet offensive through the Fulda Gap could only be defeated by nuclear weapons. But the permanent presence of 200,000 US troops in Germany – along with 55,000 soldiers from the British Army of the Rhine – would slow down the onslaught and buy a few days, or perhaps weeks, for cooler heads to prevail before the terrible moment of decision arrived.

Today, no such safety margin exists. If Russia were to invade the Baltic states, Nato would probably have one option – and one alone – to defend its members. America, Britain and France would need to decide almost immediately whether to use nuclear weapons. If they opted to abandon the Baltics, then Nato would be finished.

Once a collective defence pact throws one member to the wolves, the game is up. At that moment, Nato would effectively be dissolved, leaving every European country with no choice but to ask Russia for gentle treatment. By moving against the Baltic states, Mr Putin could force us to choose between scrapping Nato or going nuclear.

Does anyone believe the thought has never crossed his mind?

Russia needs to attack Estonia. Collapse it's government and watch NATO bicker. The USA will never risk getting pulverized and the alliance will be officially declared dead.


I pray we are lucky enough to see this.

[Slant]

They can't help themselves.

"Looking strong" is the only thing they have.

We need a new slang phrase for the Russian Putin patsies. I like Russkis but its too general. We used to call them 'Reds'. How about the "Pooties"? or something ridiculous.

Well, Russkis is a bit mean and misleading. We actually have Russian posters on these forums that don't agree with the Putinistas at all and are actually able to present a rather objective and moderated form of their perspective.

The Putinistas of course think they're basically traitors and just ignore them, but I think they're actually the majority of the population in Russia... normal people that just want to go through their lives and are just victims of systematic state propaganda. The internet is making this type of cold war propaganda one hell of a difficult thing, though.

The more Russians learn English, the less Putin will be able to continue his sharades.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...t-Estonia.html


Russia needs to attack Estonia. Collapse it's government and watch NATO bicker. The USA will never risk getting pulverized and the alliance will be officially declared dead.


I pray we are lucky enough to see this.

I think... at this point in history? Russia would lose control over their country faster than you can get a thread to 100 pages on MMO-C GenOT talking about a syrian transgender gun-advocate mass shooting a Palestinian village with an Israeli Uzi and doing the Nazi salute after the deed.

[Cybran]

The more Russians learn English, the less Putin will be able to continue his sharades.

You are dead wrong. Moderate Russians read posts like yours and the warmongering mouthfoaming jingoism of Scroesec and they turn to Putin. You are making him stronger by spouting lies.


the USSR was brought down by the people of Eastern Europe. Not by Ray-gun and not by American "economy and culture".

[Deleted]

"The Russians don't have any facts for blaming Ukraine, We have facts, photographs, memorandums, tonnes of stuff."

I haven't laughed like this in a long time. Thank you, adam86shadow, more news like this, please.

[Skroe]

I wish you'd read Skroes posts for the informational value they have instead of just looking for tidbits that you can refute (or at least attempt to). If you actually listened instead of being stubborn, you'd see many things where the US isn't doing everything perfectly. But you're just attacking Skroe's argument right in the spot where he's strongest... that's just bloody daft. And stubborn.

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair, throwing waves of human flesh at the enemy at their strongest point and hoping for a break through *IS* the quintessential Russian maneuver.

I think you're one of the few people who appreciates how careful I am with my sources. Because it is very interesting information, regardless of what you think of the fundamental policy at the base of it. At least it puts the *why* in context, which is always interesting.

Like with respect to that article, I wouldn't be surprised if Cybran just associated *big nuke* with *scary*, *desirable*. Why? Cuz *big*. Nevermind there are actual interesting reasons why throw 15 reentry vehicles on one ICBM is considered a bad idea by American analysts.

It reminds me of one time, late last year, we had one guy in OT here swear up and down that today, Russia and the US have multi-gigaton nuclear weapons capable of basically cracking a continent in half. Why? Because Russia detonated Tsar Bomba 60 years ago and surely nukes MUST be bigger now. It never occured to him that they would get smaller (and are getting smaller), and MIRVing showed up, as did better guidance systems, and made super-nukes (which existed because early ICBMs had 3 - 1.6km CEPs) conceptually obsolete.

Some folks just have a strange aversion to "why". To me, the interesting part of these discussions is never being right. Fundamentally, who cares what a Bulgarian on OT thinks. It's always exploring the *why*. That's always interesting.