Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Ashez said:

I people in Russia can swallow a lot. USA however would not. All tensions -racial, regional and others -supressed by authorities during the peace time would make the country implode. USA is the single western country where during one natural disaster the rest of the world could see pictures of gangs shooting police helicopters.

People in Russia are tougher. It is really hard to break them. You can hurt them but not break. This is why any serious Russian 'opposition' matters only in western media.

 

Errr tell that to the Czar and his family. You really need to try a different medical regimen dude, you are hallucinating again. See New York during 911?  It didnt exactly implode.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, sburke said:

Errr tell that to the Czar and his family. You really need to try a different medical regimen dude, you are hallucinating again. See New York during 911?  It didnt exactly implode.  

Now you try to offend me again? Ar you a kind local jester? How old are you?

In case you haven't followed your own elections let me remind you that west and east coast USA is not the same USA as the rest. Don't even make me start on inequalities between rich and poor or just black and white. One act of solidarity during terrorist attack is irrelevant.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, HerrTom said:

...while the use of nuclear weapons would no doubt be devestating, the equation changed somewhat with the advent of more accurate targeting and nuclear disarmament. Accurate targeting means smaller warheads, most of which are targeted counterforce rather than countervalue due to the second point.  Fewer warheads means more are reserved for hitting military installations and especially enemy nuclear assets.

I think you are missing an important point. Even assuming that all warheads are exclusively targeted on counterforce objectives, taking out missile silos means detonating at or below ground level, which will put huge amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere. And mind you, this is not just one or two warheads, but at least dozens or scores all going off in one day. The resulting fallout will kill a lot of people, perhaps for generations. And even those who do not die are going to suffer quality of life degradation from chronic illness and/or disability. Even a limited nuclear war is likely to be the greatest catastrophe since the last big super volcano blew.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude you are so far off on the actual state of America it isn't even funny anymore.  Stop watching RT, it is just a bunch of BS. And I am likely older than you which means my tolerance level for stupid bs is pretty low. Get educated and stop spouting nonsense and you'll get more respect. 

 

That was for Ashez not you Michael, but you can get the hell off my lawn too - hippy

Edited by sburke
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ashez said:

Now you try to offend me again? Ar you a kind local jester? How old are you?

In case you haven't followed your own elections let me remind you that west and east coast USA is not the same USA as the rest. Don't even make me start on inequalities between rich and poor or just black and white. One act of solidarity during terrorist attack is irrelevant.  

No inequalities in Russia? East & rest Russia are the same? No vast difference between ruling elite and the poor Ballard's at the bottom? Russia has no internal tensions with ethnic/religious minorities? Didn't they fight a truly awful war against one? So.... No worries there I guess. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ashez said:

In case you haven't followed your own elections let me remind you that west and east coast USA is not the same USA as the rest. Don't even make me start on inequalities between rich and poor or just black and white. One act of solidarity during terrorist attack is irrelevant.  

LOL what @sburke said - give up on RT, stop putting lies into your own head and watch a real news source. You are confusing political disagreement with disunity. It is hard for people who are encouraged to view dissent as disloyalty to understand it but we in the free world disagree about lots of stuff but we agree on much more and when the chips are down we help each other out. You quote various examples of bad things happening during disasters - there is always some jackass taking advantage - those are small potatoes.  You don't understand the level that people cooperate and help each other out in times of trouble. Volunteers from all over the place and from other countries come to help out if the disaster is big enough.

Plus, you are conflating two things - social collapse and government collapse. I highly doubt that citizens of the US or Russia would suffer from social collapse (Russians are too tough and Americans are to community minded). Governments are another matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ashez said:

I really think you underestimate Russian resilience. The dependencies are mutual, half of Europe depends on Russian natural gas. Economic crisis would be world wide, it would all boil down to question if you can feed your people and keep alive as many as possible. I am sure Russia would survive limited nuclear exchange as a state easily, people in Russia can swallow a lot. USA however would not. All tensions -racial, regional and others -supressed by authorities during the peace time would make the country implode. USA is the single western country where during one natural disaster the rest of the world could see pictures of gangs shooting police helicopters.

People in Russia are tougher. It is really hard to break them. You can hurt them but not break. This is why any serious Russian 'opposition' matters only in western media. One more thing about Russian leadership: Putin is predictable. He lies but no more than US dep.of state or so called 'intelligence community'. Russian diplomacy is predictable and respected by everyone outside transatlantic area. I would fear what happens when Putin is out. With Shoigu you may have Russian hawks in power and probable war. And they will not ignore McCain or Graham's insane mumblings, warmongering and hostility.

 

 

Now this, this is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Gotta give credit where its due. 

Though this post doesn't warrant a serious response, as it is pure comedy, I can muster this image:

n_55606_1.jpg

 

I do have one question for you Ashez ("of the contemptible West" which I assume is your full title) which is, do you even own Black Sea? Or are you just here to grace us with your hysterical comedic parodies of the world?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

I do have one question for you Ashez ("of the contemptible West" which I assume is your full title) which is, do you even own Black Sea? Or are you just here to grace us with your hysterical comedic parodies of the world?

I am CM player since the beginning on the company.

18 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Now this, this is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Gotta give credit where its due. 

Though this post doesn't warrant a serious response, as it is pure comedy, I can muster this image:

Funny, because everything on this forum which is not military but politicaly related that is said by US or Canadian players on this forum produces unstoppable seizures of laughter for everyone closer to Russia.

You try to build impression or Russia using your own standards. Russia in anachronic in many ways but trying to compare it by own social or economical standards is a pure folly and must bring false results,

It is same as trying to compare Saudi Arabia chances in 1vs1 confrontation against Iran. 

And I don't contempt West. I just warn you are far off in your estimations. I do contempt hypocrisy. And your  government mastered it to perfection long before Russians learnt it.

Edited by Ashez
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IICptMillerII said:

Well this makes sense, seeing as seizures and other health complications are quite common with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

Sorry, I do not understand. Can you tell me more?

2 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Oh I'm sure.

I don't know. You want me to give you all my keys?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Well this makes sense, seeing as seizures and other health complications are quite common with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

Now that is well below the belt!

You are a particularly vile little troll aren't you Miller?

PS - Keep taking the Prozac.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:

I think you are missing an important point. Even assuming that all warheads are exclusively targeted on counterforce objectives, taking out missile silos means detonating at or below ground level, which will put huge amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere. And mind you, this is not just one or two warheads, but at least dozens or scores all going off in one day. The resulting fallout will kill a lot of people, perhaps for generations. And even those who do not die are going to suffer quality of life degradation from chronic illness and/or disability. Even a limited nuclear war is likely to be the greatest catastrophe since the last big super volcano blew.

Michael

Perhaps my verbiage could use some work! You're definitely right, it would be utterly catastrophic. Cancer and birth defect rates especially in the Midwest and east coast would quadruple or more. It would be terrible! Millions would die outright and many more over the next decades.

My point moreover was that life goes on, and the states live on. We're past the days of 20 megaton soviet missiles landing on San Francisco and massive countervalue strikes meant to collapse the government and civil infrastructure.

Though I think I'm a little far from my original point in that even with the reduced damage assessments, actors still consider it unacceptable. Though it brings the thought of brinkmanship to play, are we ailing to risk it for Latvia or Ukraine? Is France? Germany? NATO has a good record of cooperation, but is it still as strong when the existential risk to the strongest members isn't really there anymore?

Edit: Erm... Guys? I know we're mad at each other and all, but is this really necessary? Steve's probably already at the locksmith making a special padlock for this thread...

Edited by HerrTom
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2017 at 4:38 PM, Ashez said:

Again, it is a pure political fiction. And please don't throw Poland and the Baltic States into the same bag, Poland doesn't have Russian minority and the only people that speak Russian in Poland are Ukrainian migrants and students. Poland feels nervous about Russia since always so nothing new here - with politicians being most nervous - as usually. 

I think only Baltic States may have some legitimate concerns, though military action is unlikely. Belarus is out of question, any influence attempts by NATO countries are likely to provoke war. Don't get fooled by Lukashenko's maneuevers -almost no Belarus citizen would ever act against Russians.

Some other concern of eastern europe's NATO countries is fear of a potential local small scale nuclear attack - many people in Poland are convinced NOONE in NATO except USA would ever react in other way than starting immediate de-escalating negotiations.

 

I refer you to Eastern European History which I think you would do well to study. Poland and the Baltic States all have strong historical grounds to fear Russian agression nd indeed have been victims in the past.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Without someone to bully NATO is nothing.....Just like Miller and his ilk.

Pretty sad men.

1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

Well this makes sense, seeing as seizures and other health complications are quite common with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

And I though he'd prove to be decent and apology...

 

Edited by Ashez
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

I refer you to Eastern European History which I think you would do well to study. Poland and the Baltic States all have strong historical grounds to fear Russian agression nd indeed have been victims in the past.

 

I will reply in private,

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...