Post: #26

IT seems like communist nations and people from those nations are very much in love with Declarations like this. Don't Chinese people and China write letters like this as well?

Sure, I'm sure they could nuke us, but we can nuke them too. I don't really see the point in the whole "warning." Other countries have nukes. We already knew this.

I'm always chuckling when dudes on the net write about how Russia and China have super nukes that would hit us 1 hour before we even knew it would happen. It sounds like a lot of hot air.

That isn't to say they can't nuke us, but these sorts of lopsided "warnings" leave out a whole lot.

Post: #27

Open conflict with Russia would be an unmitigated disaster for the United States, even if nuclear weapons were not used by either side (an outcome which is far from certain, and maybe not even likely).

The elephant in the room is cyber warfare, particularly targeting U.S. domestic infrastructure. It's a certainty that Russia (and probably China and Israel as well) have some degree of penetration of the U.S. electric grid. The only question is how deeply that penetration extends. If Russia has fully or near-fully compromised our grid security (not impossible by any means, and not even that unlikely) then the implications would be utterly catastrophic during a conflict. By utilizing software similar to Stuxnet (a deep penetration sleeper software which the U.S. and Israel used to sabotage Iranian nuclear reactors) the Russians could essentially shut down vast swaths of the U.S. power grid. A quick primer:

The power grid is monitored and controlled in regional control centers that function similarly to air traffic control towers. System operators can "see" the entire grid in their region in real time, monitoring load levels on transmission lines and substations. This data is gathered by protection and control devices (relays) which are fed voltages and currents directly from small instrument transformers attached directly to lines, transformers and other equipment. In the old days (aka during the Cold War, when cyber warfare was not a strategic concern for the following reason) these relays were electromechanical in nature and functioned entirely as protective devices: they were calibrated to trip out equipment or power lines as soon as a certain voltage or current level was reached. Being electromechanical in nature, they were obviously impervious to hacking. Sabotage would require physical penetration of the substation in which the relay was housed. Therefore, sabotaging a large swath of the power grid would essentially be impossible.

Today, however, not only are modern relays computerized, they are also networked together via a SCADA system that feeds into the central electric control center. This is how a modern electric grid is monitored and controlled. The system was designed for maximum protection, control and reliability. Security has always been an afterthought, and keeping the SCADA system completely isolated from the outside world is a pipe dream. Stuxnet was delivered via infected USB drives, and our system could easily be compromised in the same manner. With a Stuxnet-type software, the Russians could essentially spoof voltage and current data on the relays, affecting both its protection settings and its reporting to the control center. For example, a relay designed to trip when it senses 1000 amps of current on a line could be made to think it was only seeing 500 amps. The control center, being fed data from the relay, would also think everything was normal. Meanwhile, the line the relay is monitoring is actually burning down.

The real danger, however, is applying a Stuxnet-type attack to the generators at power plants and large transmission transformers on the grid. A Stuxnet-type virus would allow the Russians to rip apart generators and blow up transformers by supplying false data to system operators. These are the most sensitive, expensive and difficult to replace pieces of equipment in the system. A wide scale attack that resulted in dozens or hundreds of plants going offline simultaneously with destroyed generators and transformers would result in an apocalyptic scenario. This would not be an issue of being without power for a few weeks. It would literally take years to restore grid function. The interim period would be horrific. Tens of millions of people would be dead within weeks. The economy would literally grind to a halt. No food gets distributed. Mass starvation. Running water stops. Sanitation is a thing of the past. Mass disease. People would turn into animals clawing for survival. It would be utter anarchy.

This is the real danger of open conflict with the Russians. It doesn't even have to go nuclear to completely destroy our modern civilization. Cyber warfare is to the 21st century what nuclear weapons were to the 20th century. Most people just don't understand that because we haven't had our Hiroshima and Nagasaki yet.

Post: #28

^debeguiled excellent info Regarding Russia thanks for sharing. I have been to Moscow on business and would rather live there than New Yorkistan any day. Safe modern thriving seat of immense wealth and power... Not crumbling like Detroit or a war zone like Chiraq of the Obamanation.

Post: #29

Russia and the US will never, ever actually go to war.

Despite what is said, I believe Russia's biggest threat is China. It always has been, really.

Post: #30

(08-11-2016 08:11 PM)scorpion Wrote:  This is the real danger of open conflict with the Russians. It doesn't even have to go nuclear to completely destroy our modern civilization. Cyber warfare is to the 21st century what nuclear weapons were to the 20th century. Most people just don't understand that because we haven't had our Hiroshima and Nagasaki yet.

Then the odd result of it all, won't be devastated cities with devastated buildings.
Nor any mile wide radioactive craters.

It'll just be the Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, Chicago skylines at night, all in complete darkness.

Well, expect for maybe the fires from all the looting & vandalism...

Plus as a complete aside.
Seems ol' Russia surprised a few folk with their new capabilities when attacking ISIS.
Cruise missiles, newer air platforms & the like.

Post: #31

(08-11-2016 04:46 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  But we are just as certain that if Russia is attacked, or even threatened with attack, she will not back down, and that the Russian leadership will not “blink.” With great sadness and a heavy heart they will do their sworn duty and unleash a nuclear barrage from which the United States will never recover.

You can view the constant push towards Russia in two ways, either as ultimate preparation for war, or as a bluff hoping that Russia will, as Orlov says, "blink". This is obvious projection and lack of understanding on Russian psyche from the neocons. The Russians will NOT back down.

Look at this face:


This man is named Sergey Karakaev and he is the Commander of Strategic Missile Forces. Does he looks like a man who would blink? Does he look like a man who would fail to issue the Final Order?

Post: #32

Let's be sensible here. The Russian leaders are as sane and level headed as the top people in any long standing, well trained army.

I know lots of members here like to get hot and bothered thinking about the mighty bear destroying america, but it's not going to happen folks.

Get a grip!

Post: #33

I've been reading up on Russian millitary technogy. Look up the "Donald Cook incident in the Black Sea". The Russians have advanced electronic warfare devices, such as the Khibiny that can cripple US systems such as the Aegis system.

And, the US relies far to much on Stealth technology where the Russians have deliberately made their fighter aircraft much better dog fighters.

If you factor in the fact that the Russians have radar and missile systems that can detect stealth aircraft, then we have a scenario where Russian aircraft will quickly gain air superiority in and US/ Russia conflict. The Russian success we have seen in a Syria is a mere taster of their capabilities.

Post: #34

(08-12-2016 04:29 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  Let's be sensible here. The Russian leaders are as sane and level headed as the top people in any long standing, well trained army.

I know lots of members here like to get hot and bothered thinking about the mighty bear destroying america, but it's not going to happen folks.

Get a grip!

That's not really the point though. I don't think anyone's suggesting that Russia wants a conflict with the US, or would deliberately start a war. The point is, what happens if Russia is attacked first, either by the US or, more likely by a US proxy, such as Ukraine? A few days ago a group of Ukrainian saboteurs were apprehended in Crimea; some Russian soldiers were killed in the firefight. If the attack had succeeded and caused a large number of casualties, the Russians might feel it appropriate/necessary to launch military action against Ukraine. Ultimately you only have peace if both sides want it. If one side keeps pushing for war, eventually there will be war. There is a limit to how often you can turn the other cheek.

Post: #35

(08-12-2016 08:57 AM)Diogenes Wrote:  

(08-12-2016 04:29 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  Let's be sensible here. The Russian leaders are as sane and level headed as the top people in any long standing, well trained army.

I know lots of members here like to get hot and bothered thinking about the mighty bear destroying america, but it's not going to happen folks.

Get a grip!

That's not really the point though. I don't think anyone's suggesting that Russia wants a conflict with the US, or would deliberately start a war. The point is, what happens if Russia is attacked first, either by the US or, more likely by a US proxy, such as Ukraine? A few days ago a group of Ukrainian saboteurs were apprehended in Crimea; some Russian soldiers were killed in the firefight. If the attack had succeeded and caused a large number of casualties, the Russians might feel it appropriate/necessary to launch military action against Ukraine. Ultimately you only have peace if both sides want it. If one side keeps pushing for war, eventually there will be war. There is a limit to how often you can turn the other cheek.

It is the point.

It's never going to happen, so the mental masturbation is pointless.

Post: #36

Russia's armed forces play a defensive role and they're well prepared for it. Russia has no other choice but to strengthen its military and defense infrastructure. This is the result of aggressive US politics aimed at weakening and harming any country that can potentially represent an adversary in global (geo)politics. We all know the US has been pursuing a strategy of confinement and of military encirclement of Russia (and in the last years China too) for years, if not decades (starting immediately after the collapse of the USSR).
With Putin in power, Russia's armed forces aren't only in the midst of an important modernisation effort, but the country itself is sending a strong signal to anyone thinking it can subdue her like it has been done in many other cases.
From an historical point of view, eveybody knows about the failures of Napoleon and Hitler in trying to invade Russia and the strong morale and patriotism of her people.
Whereas if we talk about it's capabilities in terms of weaponry, Russia's greatest strength is her missiles, which excel in every field, be it attack or defense.
As for the US, its main strength is represented by the massive number of warships, making the US the king of the sea.
However, we must take into consideration the fact that warfare tactics and technologies are costantly changing and detach ourselves from the traditional concepts of war and power projection.


I strongly suggest everyone reads this article which dismantles 7 popular clichés relating to warfare: http://www.globalresearch.ca/what-would-...d_articles

Post: #37

(08-12-2016 04:29 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  Let's be sensible here. The Russian leaders are as sane and level headed as the top people in any long standing, well trained army.

I know lots of members here like to get hot and bothered thinking about the mighty bear destroying america, but it's not going to happen folks.

Get a grip!

There's a massive chance of war with Russia if Hillary takes power. It's basically common knowledge at this point: Hillary will use the US military to whomever pays her enough.

If they want us to fuck up Russia, Hillary would do it for a big enough paycheck. The question is if anyone would be willing to pay, and it does seem like there are a ton of rich globalists out there who want Putin taken out like Hilter was taken out.

Post: #38

(08-12-2016 04:48 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  Look up the "Donald Cook incident in the Black Sea". The Russians have advanced electronic warfare devices, such as the Khibiny that can cripple US systems such as the Aegis system.

That was a complete non event, fluffed up in the media by conspiracy theorists and Russian shills.

Ive stood thousands of hours of watch in the CIC of DDGs just like the USS Donald Cook. The precise capabilities and limitations of AEGIS are not open source so I will not go into them, but I will use what open source information I can to lend credence to my position. The Obama Administration's pacifistic stance notwithstanding, the "incident" went exactly how I would expect it to. There were known ECM/EW aircraft in the area and they made passes to try and goad the Cook into activating certain radars to get their electronic signatures. Ive been in the same situation with Iranian aircraft. As there was no real or de facto state of hostilities between Russia and the US, Donald Cook played it cool and denied them that intelligence.

Quote:An electronic countermeasure (ECM) is an electrical or electronic device designed to trick or deceive radar, sonar or other detection systems, like infrared (IR) or lasers. It may be used both offensively and defensively to deny targeting information to an enemy. The system may make many separate targets appear to the enemy, or make the real target appear to disappear or move about randomly. It is used effectively to protect aircraft from guided missiles. Most air forces use ECM to protect their aircraft from attack. It has also been deployed by military ships and recently on some advanced tanks to fool laser/IR guided missiles. It is frequently coupled with stealth advances so that the ECM systems have an easier job. Offensive ECM often takes the form of jamming. Defensive ECM includes using blip enhancement and jamming of missile terminal homers.

You jam a specific type or range of sensors, AEGIS itself can not be jammed except by destroying the electronic distribution system of the ship it is employed on. Semantics I know for all present, but the #CrookedMedia will make use of the ignorant to push their narrative.

AEGIS itself is a battlespace management system that takes inputs from various sensors, processes them, and uses the result to autonomously utilize offensive or defensive weapon systems.

AN/SPY-1 radar is the main search radar and really what AEGIS is built around. Max power is 4-6 MW. As in 4-6 MILLION watts in a 1.7x1.7 degree beam.

Khibiny ECM pod below. How much power can that possibly put out?


SLQ-32 is installed onboard US Navy combatants to detect and classify electronic signals, and you can bet your ass they "hit record" during the fly by.

Thats just the technical side of that story. The rest of it is obviously BS. The 27 sailors who "resigned"? People flying out due to transfer in/out of the unit, happens every port. The being towed to port? Do you even tugboat? Silence from the US? Obama is a pussy, and it really wasn't that big a deal in the first place. I haven't seen a single credible source that can prove me wrong.

Post: #39

Russia seems to be wanting to protect itself, as no way does it have the strength to conquer Europe, and why would it want to anyway? If I were Russia I'd be wanting to shut the European door (militarily) to focus my eyes south. You've got a ravenous, growing dragon there and your country has the resources it needs. Part of me wonders whether the sabre-rattling from Russia is actually a warning directed to the Chinese.

Also, never mind how clever our technology is: look how cheap and effective Russian military forces are and have been. The Germans had 'better' tanks in the Tiger and Panther in WW2, but endless, cheap T34s turned the tide. Same problem with the F22 etc - what happens when NATO starts losing planes? In WW2 we could train a guy for a few months and stick him in a Spitfire, but how do you replace your losses with such advanced technology and necessary expertise that only a tiny percentage have? The West has almost nullified it's ability to wage total war in its pursuit of military sophistication.

This is what worries me about Hillary - if she ramps up the anti-Russian rhetoric and allows herself to be drawn into conflict by the military-industrial complex, we all pay the price.

Post: #40

(08-12-2016 03:54 PM)Matsufubu Wrote:  The West has almost nullified it's ability to wage total war in its pursuit of military sophistication.

'Total war' is fought today by engaging the enemy with standoff weaponry. Hit them before they hit you. I have great confidence - but not hubris - regarding our first strike capabilities.

Where we get bogged down until as of late are in these glorified police actions and proxy wars where politics hamstrings our ability to fight correctly. Granted, we are/were not used to the gritty realities of asymetrical small-scale urban warfare, but we've cut our teeth enough in the Middle East to fight competantly if allowed to do so.

Post: #41

(08-12-2016 04:29 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  thinking about the mighty bear destroying America,

The mighty bear won't even have to go out of its woods and destroy America. The mighty bear just has to wait a few years, and see Hillary, MSM, SJW and BLM people destroy America themselves, from within... (well, unless the Donald wins, of course, cause if Trump wins, then the mighty bear will have a new, powerful friend, a mighty lion)