The cognitive meltdown of Russophobes here in this forum is truly entertaining.

Scorpius wrote:

estorilm wrote:

We are doomed!

Has everyone forgotten that the MAD concept STILL APPLIES when one country has an increased probability of their weapons "getting through" enemy defenses?

Nothing about the concept has changed, since Russia would still be completely incapable of stopping land, air, and sea-based nuclear strike options from allies.

I hope we're not getting back into the technical races, developing even more effective weapons while forgetting that no one is still able to press the button without being erased off the map.

Technology is great, but that fact will always remain.

Russia's defense doctrine is based on the inevitability of retaliatory strike in case of an attack on Russia or its allies. That is not a first strike, retaliatory strike.

Who would attack or invade Russia? They have nothing anyone needs.

wingman wrote:

The horrible truth about Russia is that since Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture they've done absolutely nothing, contributed not a single positive advancement to general human history. They export natural resources and fear, I honestly can't think of a single thing any Russian could be proud of about their country

There is no need to piss on a country just because of the tyrant who rules there!

Russia is a great country with a proud history. They have for centuries had this ability to rise phoenix like from the ashes from beat the enemy. That speaks of a people with courage.

Their current leadership may be a tyrant. But are we really better off?

pylon101 wrote:

The cognitive meltdown of Russophobes here in this forum is truly entertaining.

IKR? It's almost as bad as the cognitive dissonance the Russophiles display.

Tugg

Now to change the subject:

fab81 wrote:

If you didn't know, CIA was already doing everything possible to get ride of President Charles De Gaulle in the early sixties... they started as soon he made clearly France would not be aligned with the US. There a lot of materials available on the net about that but its in french based on declassified secret archives , for example https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdy7u9.

This is an English language site, so you are required to post your propaganda in English here. But I can tell you I was in the US Army in Europe from 63-65, operating an air defense radar, so I know a little about Franco American relations back then. They may not have been in NATO, but there was a French anti aircraft Battalion in Bitburg Germany, protecting the American AFB there, I once took a tour of their facility. I have no doubt that somebody in the CIA was closely watching De Gaulle, hoping to find a way to trip him up, he certainly wasn't the most popular guy in American circles. But neither the CIA or anyone else in the US government was doing much of anything to meddle in French affairs and France was in a pretty vulnerable position back then with the Algerian crisis going on. You're trying to sell a falsehood.[/quote]

So if it doesn't fit with your point of view, it's propaganda ?? The program in the link was made for the French parliament channel (LCP), based on CIA archives and DGSE ones (french secret services) and interview of people working during those times.
You are so open minded, if it would have been in English, you would not watch it as it's anyway propaganda... But you have lived in Europe, so you might have some understanding of German or French languages for example or speak it?
I'm sorry but operate an air defense radar in Europe at that time doesn't mean you have knowledge of what's going on at higher levels. I think declassified secret archives is a more reliable source of info.
Everybody is free to make its own opinion.

I have been reading that forum for at least fifteen year as I'm a fan of aviation. Never took the time to register and post but I couldn't resist to jump in to expose another point of view. There is so much bias..

fab81 wrote:

GDB wrote:

In 1966, France, or President CDG really, had one of his hissy fits and withdrew France from NATO.
Other NATO members, the US being the most powerful of course and whose forces were expelled from France as a result of this move, did.................nothing.
Not even economic retaliation.

If you didn't know, CIA was already doing everything possible to get ride of President Charles De Gaulle in the early sixties... they started as soon he made clearly France would not be aligned with the US.
There a lot of materials available on the net about that but its in french based on declassified secret archives , for example https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdy7u9.

Evern if they were (and when in 1975 hearings in the US that provoked a scandal about some CIA operations did not feature France to my knowledge) they did not do a very good job of it. CDG left office due to internal French politics, compare and contrast with what happened to anyone who defied the USSR in the Warsaw Pact.
You cannot get away from the fact that NATO members could leave.

GDB wrote:

fab81 wrote:

GDB wrote:

In 1966, France, or President CDG really, had one of his hissy fits and withdrew France from NATO.
Other NATO members, the US being the most powerful of course and whose forces were expelled from France as a result of this move, did.................nothing.
Not even economic retaliation.

If you didn't know, CIA was already doing everything possible to get ride of President Charles De Gaulle in the early sixties... they started as soon he made clearly France would not be aligned with the US.
There a lot of materials available on the net about that but its in french based on declassified secret archives , for example https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdy7u9.

Evern if they were (and when in 1975 hearings in the US that provoked a scandal about some CIA operations did not feature France to my knowledge) they did not do a very good job of it. CDG left office due to internal French politics, compare and contrast with what happened to anyone who defied the USSR in the Warsaw Pact.
You cannot get away from the fact that NATO members could leave.

1975 was too early to speak about that certainly as it was too fresh.
There is a lot of speculation about who supported the May 68 internal events that lead to CDG retirement, but I have no hard facts , so I will stop here.

salttee wrote:

The US missile shield is pretty much a PR stunt as most knowledgeable people know (they haven't even gotten to the point where they can intercept a Scud yet (see recent events in Saudi Arabia), if the US can't deliver a system to stop a (single) Scud then there's not a snowball's chance in hell of the US being able to stop hundreds of Soviet built ICBMs, (not to mention SLBMS and Tu-160M2's etc.)

Sure, but do the Russians know or think this too? A useless propaganda tool can still cause a massive mess if the opposing side doesn't see it as a cheap trick. Just look at the reactions that this cheap PR stunt caused in the west. Even the NATO leadership itself fell for it...

fab81 wrote:

GDB wrote:

fab81 wrote:

If you didn't know, CIA was already doing everything possible to get ride of President Charles De Gaulle in the early sixties... they started as soon he made clearly France would not be aligned with the US.
There a lot of materials available on the net about that but its in french based on declassified secret archives , for example https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdy7u9.

Evern if they were (and when in 1975 hearings in the US that provoked a scandal about some CIA operations did not feature France to my knowledge) they did not do a very good job of it. CDG left office due to internal French politics, compare and contrast with what happened to anyone who defied the USSR in the Warsaw Pact.
You cannot get away from the fact that NATO members could leave.

1975 was too early to speak about that certainly as it was too fresh.
There is a lot of speculation about who supported the May 68 internal events that lead to CDG retirement, but I have no hard facts , so I will

Those hearingsstop here.

Theose hearings dealt with, amongst other things, CIA activities in places like Chile, Australia, two examples included post CDG.

Back to these weapons, a lot of it is Putin willy waving, the more outlandish systems he boasted about are likely little more than concepts.
In an odd way it's kind of like Reagan's 'Star Wars' in the 1980's, he might have believed in it but most scientific opinion thought the various SDI ideas at best, decades from deployment and many others pure flights of fantasy.

Putin is just trying to give the Russian people a reason he should stay in power by putting on a show using a couple new shiny toys.

Something I am wondering is why this is considered something forced or needed or impressive, or innovative or good? Or if it demonstrates prowess or supremacy or makes the USA as causing this or a bad guy necessitating this?

As others have pointed out, this tech has been around for decades. The USA among others have looked into it, developed some of the tech and created detailed plans for its use:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_SCuPId8KA

So what makes anyone think it is forced? The USA and other nations felt "forced" for decades to develop weapons and technology but nations also reviewed the tech and its impact and the affects and the consequences. And it was decided the risks outweighed the benefits so to speak.

So are those saying this was good, or impressive or just an obvious reaction to outside events, are you stating that the USA and other countries should have employed these weapons 50 decades ago when they were first envisioned and development started?

Tugg

fab81 wrote:

There is a lot of speculation about who supported the May 68 internal events that lead to CDG retirement, but I have no hard facts , so I will stop here.

There is a lot of speculation yes but what we do know of May'68 revolution is that the French Communists & Socialists did much of the legwork to make that revolution happen. It ultimately failed, but we tried to bring change.

May'68 was a legitimate uprising of Students & Workers against CDG's crony capitalist policies. I dont think this is something you can pin on the CIA. Or the USSR for that matter.

Now can we get back to discussing the Sarmat?

Aesma wrote:

France never left the political side of NATO. Today it's the only side that should exist anyway, along with cooperation between the nations' militaries. I can't understand why so many countries accept to have US military bases on their soil, it's not like the US would accept such a thing.

Self preservation….A US military base brings treaties for mutual defense, trade, economic growth, cultural exchange, immigration possibilities, etc. No one is going to attack a country that the US is treaty bound to defend.
Under-the-counter, the US military can reduce the host country's military thereby eliminating the threat of a local military coup. Many examples exist.

Caryjack wrote:

Self preservation….A US military base brings treaties for mutual defense, trade, economic growth, cultural exchange, immigration possibilities, etc. No one is going to attack a country that the US is treaty bound to defend.
Under-the-counter, the US military can reduce the host country's military thereby eliminating the threat of a local military coup. Many examples exist.

do you think Qatar would follow your reasoning?

US military bases are more like a cancer in the last decades.

WIederling wrote:

Caryjack wrote:

Self preservation….A US military base brings treaties for mutual defense, trade, economic growth, cultural exchange, immigration possibilities, etc. No one is going to attack a country that the US is treaty bound to defend.
Under-the-counter, the US military can reduce the host country's military thereby eliminating the threat of a local military coup. Many examples exist.

do you think Qatar would follow your reasoning?

US military bases are more like a cancer in the last decades.

You think that founder of the DPRK, enthusiastic Gulag builder and mass starvation enabler, the 'Great' or 'Dear' Leader or whatever he HAS to be called, would have not tried again at 're-uniting' the two Koreas if not for the US military bases in ROK after 1953?
You think that the West Berliners until 1989 could not have 'enjoyed' the charms of the Eastern part (you know, the part that was so good the GDR had to put a wall up to keep their own people enjoying freedom of movement), without US and British and French forces in West Berlin?
The USSR even tried to starve them out FFS!

GDB wrote:

You think ........................ them out FFS!

You bore.

Think about what brought on "Wiedervereinigung". And when that process was started.

Then look at the N/S Korea process and look at who interrupted progress into a massive regression.

The unmanned underwater vehicle might be able to cut down a lot of its weight and thus much higher performance than any other vehicles by cutting down on radiation shielding, as seawater seems to be a pretty good isolator for radiation so it seems like as long as the craft always stay deep enough underseas then it would not cause much environmental problems? Although electronics will still need to be shielded

GDB wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Caryjack wrote:

Self preservation….A US military base brings treaties for mutual defense, trade, economic growth, cultural exchange, immigration possibilities, etc. No one is going to attack a country that the US is treaty bound to defend.
Under-the-counter, the US military can reduce the host country's military thereby eliminating the threat of a local military coup. Many examples exist.

do you think Qatar would follow your reasoning?

US military bases are more like a cancer in the last decades.

You think that founder of the DPRK, enthusiastic Gulag builder and mass starvation enabler, the 'Great' or 'Dear' Leader or whatever he HAS to be called, would have not tried again at 're-uniting' the two Koreas if not for the US military bases in ROK after 1953?
You think that the West Berliners until 1989 could not have 'enjoyed' the charms of the Eastern part (you know, the part that was so good the GDR had to put a wall up to keep their own people enjoying freedom of movement), without US and British and French forces in West Berlin?
The USSR even tried to starve them out FFS!

If the US had not maintained a military presence in Japan and Germany after WWII those countries would have been crushed by Russia. South Korea? It would be a Chinese state. If you don't know that you're an idiot.
During December of 2011 the US President announced that Iraq was at peace, had a democratically elected president and a thriving economy. He then withdrew the military, as promised during his pre election campaign.

This from CNN:

"According to a 2014 congressional research paper by Middle Eastern specialist, Christopher M. Blanchard, Qatar invested over $1 billion to construct the air base during the 1990s, despite having only a small air force of its own at the time. This in turn, 'facilitated gradually deeper cooperation with US military forces.'"

http://www.businessinsider.com/qatar-al ... ent-2018-1
From the link: 'Qatar's Defense Minister Khalid bin Mohammad al-Attiyah announced during a visit to Washington, DC on Sunday that his country will expand the American Al Udeid Air Base....Colleagues in the US Department of Defense are reluctant to mention the word permanent, but we are working from our side to make it permanent,' Al-Attiyah said." No one will attack this country.

Qatar is one country, there are others. Many smaller countries have mutual defense treaties with the US. If the US is attacked, they will respond....Costa Rica comes to mind.

Wlederling (et al) is a troll who can't keep his trash talk to the Non-Aviation forum. Whenever he posts I get the following:
.
"WIederling, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post"

I've come to know that in the unlikely event he has something constructive to say (in any forum), a responsible member will quote him.

Thanks,
Cary

WIederling wrote:

GDB wrote:

You think ........................ them out FFS!

You bore.

Think about what brought on "Wiedervereinigung". And when that process was started.

Then look at the N/S Korea process and look at who interrupted progress into a massive regression.

....In other words, you have no answer to the examples cited.
You only have to look at satellite images of the two nations sharing that border, at night, the part that is largely shrouded in darkness (metaphorically as well as physically) is I suspect, not where YOU would choose to live if given the choice between the two.
All to keep a rotten family in absolute power, still they wave red flags about so that's all right then?

"is invulnerable to all existing and future systems such as missile defense and air defense."
Really, ALL future systems? Including lasers and railguns and Lord knows what else?

Wolf662 wrote:

"is invulnerable to all existing and future systems such as missile defense and air defense."
Really, ALL future systems? Including lasers and railguns and Lord knows what else?

Yes, ALL future systems...ye of little faith...Russia is not a country but a passion and a belief...

A definite absolutist flavour about Russian pronouncements that has not been lost after the collapse of Sovietism...

Like all dictatorial regimes, they love big, massive, formidable adjectives...'invulnerable' and 'all' are typical...


Faro

The good thing is that since Russia only did this since they were "Forced to respond" it is OK for the USA and other nations to develop and deploy new weapon systems to respond to theses new Russian ones. I mean we are being forced to respond!

Tugg

These systems are decent upgrades, however it's hard see the strategic value as they give no advantage that Russian didn't already enjoy. Incoming missiles never needed to come in from South of the US to be effective, but now they have that option.

MAD still remains unbroken which is the important thing.

Russian military will next week conducting a firing exercise with advanced robots on international water 60km south of Karlskrona. The tests are carried out a bit outside the Danish and Swedish territorial borders, but never before has Russia carried out this type of testing so far west. This area is normally passes by many civilian aircraft. According to information from the Russian navy, an area 20 000 meters up in the air can be affected.
Of course they must do this just outside the Swedish o Danish territory

SAS A340 wrote:

Of course they must do this just outside the Swedish o Danish territory

Idiots for doing this near borders and near civilian traffic, just to make a statement.

Exercising that far west will give plenty a chance to look at precedings. But I suppose that's one of the purposes of the exercise!

Tugger wrote:

The good thing is that since Russia only did this since they were "Forced to respond" it is OK for the USA and other nations to develop and deploy new weapon systems to respond to theses new Russian ones. I mean we are being forced to respond!

Tugg

The west should just bring back Project Pluto (SLAM) in a modern, stealthy form.

All the better than the B21, which interestingly seems to have the term "praenuntium" tied to it.

cpd wrote:

Tugger wrote:

The good thing is that since Russia only did this since they were "Forced to respond" it is OK for the USA and other nations to develop and deploy new weapon systems to respond to theses new Russian ones. I mean we are being forced to respond!

Tugg

The west should just bring back Project Pluto (SLAM) in a modern, stealthy form./quote]
An updated Pershing would be just peachy. We could even put some on subs in the Black Sea.

GDB wrote:

Back to these weapons, a lot of it is Putin willy waving, the more outlandish systems he boasted about are likely little more than concepts.

This.

Heck, Russia isn't able to produce anything remotely competitive, let alone state of the art, in the civilian sector; yet wants us to believe they design&build some really fancy military hardware. Yeah right, I call big BS. I bet none of those "new weapons" (minus the crude ICBM, those have been around for a while so add a new funky paint job and presto) are even close to being deployable, it's most likely just a lot of hot air (quite literally) and photoshop (albeit at least a tad better than when they tried adding ukrainian fighters into satellite pics...).
What's also remarkable is the amount of Putin trolls rolling up in this forum. I mean, come on guys, it's just too plain really. And makes me wonder why some even engage in discussions with them, talk about wasting time...
They shoot up like mushrooms everywhere on the net though, Putin must be getting dearly desperate to resort to such measures. Poor little dude, sometimes I actually feel a bit sorry for him and especially the lemmings following in his wake.