Putin says Russia's military strength unmatchable

[Snipe85]

I remember watching a video of the military strengths of different countries. Russia was way behind, since they used all the old tanks from the wars, and their Budget is 1/10th of US Military budget

That's right most of their army consists of cold war projects later outfitted with new types of radars, night vision, countermeasures and so on. For example their main light vehicle BMP-1 came into production in the 60s and is still used as a platform for many different weapons and as a troop transport. Their main long range bomber  Tupolev Tu-95 was made in the 50s. The only thing Russia has the most in the world is nuclear warheads, but most of them are old and kept in a rusty pre cold war bunkers.

Oh, and let's not forget they have a whole 1 carrier! Italy and India have 2 and the US - 10 What is funny they had 2 but sold one to China

[1714040545]

1714040545

[1714040545]

1714040545

[1714040545]

1714040545

[tss]

Soviet Union vs Putin's Russia = Same wine, different bottle

the two bottles might even come from the same factory

[bcoinbilly]

This is why nuclear weapons, military, wars, and everything that can destroy people, land, countries, or even life itself - should all go away for good.

[bryant.coleman]

I remember watching a video of the military strengths of different countries. Russia was way behind, since they used all the old tanks from the wars, and their Budget is 1/10th of US Military budget

Just because the United States is having a $600 billion military budget, it doesn't mean that their armed forces is superior. Same type of equipment costs a lot more to manufacture in the US, when compared to Russia. Also, in some fields, the US is way behind Russia. For example, Russia is having the most powerful ballistic missile in the world (SS-18 Satan) and the best air-defense system (S-400 Triumf).

[Balthazar]

SS-18 Satan

It can't be intercepted but actually it's not superior anymore. RSM-56 is way better.

[Lethn]

The only thing that I've learned about the state of readiness of the West and the East is that both sides are completely full of shit and that's what is preventing World War 3, yes, the U.S has advanced technology, but half the people there are too stupid to use it properly and the other half are aware of how dangerous it is and would never use it.

[bryant.coleman]

SS-18 Satan

It can't be intercepted but actually it's not superior anymore. RSM-56 is way better.

Bulava might be more advanced... but I am not sure whether it is reliable or not. There has been at least a dozen launch failures for this missile so far, with the latest failure occurring less than two years ago.

On the other hand, the SS-18 Satan gave USSR first strike advantage over the U.S.

[tee-rex]

I remember watching a video of the military strengths of different countries. Russia was way behind, since they used all the old tanks from the wars, and their Budget is 1/10th of US Military budget

That's right most of their army consists of cold war projects later outfitted with new types of radars, night vision, countermeasures and so on. For example their main light vehicle BMP-1 came into production in the 60s and is still used as a platform for many different weapons and as a troop transport. Their main long range bomber  Tupolev Tu-95 was made in the 50s. The only thing Russia has the most in the world is nuclear warheads, but most of them are old and kept in a rusty pre cold war bunkers.

First of all, Russia's main strategic bomber is supersonic Tupolev Tu-160 ("White Swan"), the fastest bomber out there, which was made in early 1980s (entering service in 1987). But this is not my point entirely. I'm always amused when people say about Tupolev Tu-95 as being old and decrepit... Here comes Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, America's super-modern strategic bomber from 1940s, which is still in service, lo and behold!

[mladen00]

I remember watching a video of the military strengths of different countries. Russia was way behind, since they used all the old tanks from the wars, and their Budget is 1/10th of US Military budget

1:10 Budget doesn't mean nothing
If 1 USA soldier earns 3-4 more then a russian,
and usa made 1 plane Fxx 10x more expensive than SUXX

I don't think that real ratio is bigger than 1:2

[tee-rex]

I remember watching a video of the military strengths of different countries. Russia was way behind, since they used all the old tanks from the wars, and their Budget is 1/10th of US Military budget

1:10 Budget doesn't mean nothing
If 1 USA soldier earns 3-4 more then a russian,
and usa made 1 plane Fxx 10x more expensive than SUXX

I don't think that real ratio is bigger than 1:2

Besides that, we should never forget about 700+ U.S. military bases spread across each continent with more than 2,500,000 personnel serving there. These bases make economical sense only under the U.S. dollar world hegemony (in fact, they serve to support it). As soon as this hegemony ends, all these bases will kill the U.S. economy pretty fast (just like the military expenditures finally killed the economy of the USSR).

[BADecker]

One thing is for sure. If control of the military armaments that exist around the world, falls into the hands of insane people, with world populations as high as they are, we just might have the largest mass genocides the world has ever seen.

[bryant.coleman]

One thing is for sure. If control of the military armaments that exist around the world, falls into the hands of insane people, with world populations as high as they are, we just might have the largest mass genocides the world has ever seen.

That will happen in 2016, when Hillary Clinton becomes the POTUS. First she will invade the DPRK. The next will be Iran. And the final target will be Russia, which will result in an all out nuclear warfare.

[tee-rex]

One thing is for sure. If control of the military armaments that exist around the world, falls into the hands of insane people, with world populations as high as they are, we just might have the largest mass genocides the world has ever seen.

That will happen in 2016, when Hillary Clinton becomes the POTUS. First she will invade the DPRK. The next will be Iran. And the final target will be Russia, which will result in an all out nuclear warfare.

A small correction. After (or before) she tries to invade Iran, she will be assassinated by CIA like Kennedy... Provided she becomes the president in the first place, which I doubt. I'm always lolling when I hear this abbreviation, sounds like fetus in a pot.

Though I agree that hell has no fury like a woman scorned.

[bryant.coleman]

A small correction. After (or before) she tries to invade Iran, she will be assassinated by CIA like Kennedy... Provided she becomes the president in the first place, which I doubt. I'm always lolling when I hear this abbreviation, sounds like fetus in a pot.

It is almost 99.9% certain that she will be the Democrat candidate in 2016. And with the recent demographic changes, which have occurred in the past few decades, it is almost impossible for the GOP to win presidential elections anymore.

[Balthazar]

A small correction. After (or before) she tries to invade Iran, she will be assassinated by CIA like Kennedy... Provided she becomes the president in the first place, which I doubt. I'm always lolling when I hear this abbreviation, sounds like fetus in a pot.

It is almost 99.9% certain that she will be the Democrat candidate in 2016. And with the recent demographic changes, which have occurred in the past few decades, it is almost impossible for the GOP to win presidential elections anymore.

This would be correct for direct voting... But I think you forgot that there is no presidential elections in the USA. President isn't elected by voters, he's appointed by the Electoral College. That's how Bush won 2000 presidential "elections".  

[tee-rex]

A small correction. After (or before) she tries to invade Iran, she will be assassinated by CIA like Kennedy... Provided she becomes the president in the first place, which I doubt. I'm always lolling when I hear this abbreviation, sounds like fetus in a pot.

It is almost 99.9% certain that she will be the Democrat candidate in 2016. And with the recent demographic changes, which have occurred in the past few decades, it is almost impossible for the GOP to win presidential elections anymore.

I heard her say that she was not going to run for the presidency (as being too old and too tired of politics), though she might have been just flirting with her electorate.

[digitalindustry]

WWIII will go something like this, Russia pushes a button and instantly 48.5% of the worlds population drops then the US pushes a button and another 48.5% drop. The remaining 1% then beat each other to death with clubs made from chunks of plutonium scavenged from all the obsolete nuclear weapons.

Lord Rothchild then re-populates the world with miniature clones of himself.

this made me laugh !  : D

[pattu1]

A small correction. After (or before) she tries to invade Iran, she will be assassinated by CIA like Kennedy... Provided she becomes the president in the first place, which I doubt. I'm always lolling when I hear this abbreviation, sounds like fetus in a pot.

It is almost 99.9% certain that she will be the Democrat candidate in 2016. And with the recent demographic changes, which have occurred in the past few decades, it is almost impossible for the GOP to win presidential elections anymore.

I heard her say that she was not going to run for the presidency (as being too old and too tired of politics), though she might have been just flirting with her electorate.

Since when have you started believing what politicians say?

[tee-rex]

A small correction. After (or before) she tries to invade Iran, she will be assassinated by CIA like Kennedy... Provided she becomes the president in the first place, which I doubt. I'm always lolling when I hear this abbreviation, sounds like fetus in a pot.

It is almost 99.9% certain that she will be the Democrat candidate in 2016. And with the recent demographic changes, which have occurred in the past few decades, it is almost impossible for the GOP to win presidential elections anymore.

I heard her say that she was not going to run for the presidency (as being too old and too tired of politics), though she might have been just flirting with her electorate.

Since when have you started believing what politicians say?

I didn't say that I believed that she wouldn't run, I just mentioned that had heard her saying so. Obviously, she might have been playing a touchy.

[cellard]

Same propaganda as usual, Kim Jung Un does the same. "We are so scary, so many nukes". It's how things go, it's just an ego war.