- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Russia Unveils New Main Battle Tank, Among Other Things
Posted on 5/7/15 at 8:02 pm to Vito Andolini
Posted on 5/7/15 at 8:02 pm to Vito Andolini
quote:
Vito Andolini
Your link is wrong. It says they could be forecasted to have a 3.5% economic growth, but if you will look at my earlier link their economy actually shrank by ~2-4%. It is foreign reserves have dropped by a 1/3rd and are expected to drop by another another 1/3rd by the end of the year. All the reports that russia was recovering was based on Putin's and the governments posturing and those were proven to be false when the 1st quarter numbers were reported.
Here is even more evidence that Russia is too broke to afford its rearmament program.
quote:
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said Russia's economy shrank by 2% in the first three months of this year, the first contraction since 2009.
quote:
The country's central bank has predicted the economy could shrink by up to 4% this year if oil stays at about $50 a barrel.
LINK
quote:LINK
Russia is still using up foreign reserves rather quickly: by mid April they were at $350 billion, the lowest level since the spring of 2007.
1
Posted on 5/7/15 at 8:07 pm to WeeWee
quote:
You just can't bring yourself to give me an upvote can you? Oh well I guess I will settle with a .
LOL.
You have been bringing it lately...props all around.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 8:07 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
the world is perfectly safe
Posted on 5/7/15 at 8:15 pm to Darth_Vader
If the price of oil stays down, Russia's economy will suffer.
Think Louisiana x 1000.
Plus, they wrote the book on corruption.
Think Louisiana x 1000.
Plus, they wrote the book on corruption.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 8:20 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
You claim their economy is shirking but two posts down proof is given that their economy is growing and on top of that they've got plenty of money in reserve.
See my last post. Even their own prime minister admits their economy shrank by 2% last quarter. Their currency reserves are at $350 billion and they are burning through ~$3billion a week.
quote:
But don't let facts bother you enough to pull your head out of the sand. Just keep pretending it's the mid 90's and the world is perfectly safe.
His post didn't link facts. It link one groups forecasts which so have been proven to be wrong.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 8:54 pm to WeeWee
quote:
WeeWee
Another thing you fail to grasp is that if lack of economic growth and high debt was tied to ability to field an army, the US military would have collapsed years ago. Just keep on keeping on with your head in the sand about the growing threat that Russia represents to the world over the next decade. Whatever it takes to help you sleep at night I guess.
This post was edited on 5/7/15 at 8:55 pm
Posted on 5/7/15 at 9:05 pm to Darth_Vader
Nobody gives a shite, Darth, you malingering son of a bitch.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 9:13 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Nobody gives a shite, Darth, you malingering son of a bitch.
I've been accused of a lot of things on this board. Exaggerating or feign illness in order to escape duty or work is not one of them though.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 9:14 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 5/7/15 at 9:21 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Another thing you fail to grasp is that if lack of economic growth and high debt was tied to ability to field an army, the US military would have collapsed years ago.
Lack of economic growth is tide a country's ability to field an army. Bullets aren't free, soilders have to be paid and fed. Has the USA's economy ever been to the point where we were close to defaulting on our loans or has our credit ever been degraded to junk status? No it has not. You are comparing apples and oranges when comparing Russian and American economies.
ETA: Russian bond downgraded to junk status
AA+ is the lowest ours has been since the Great Depression
Even we our economy was shrinking during the Great Recession, we were not trying to fund a massive rearmanent campaign on an economy that is based solely off of oil prices.
Just admit it. You overreacted because Russia has some new toys.
This post was edited on 5/7/15 at 9:45 pm
Posted on 5/7/15 at 9:21 pm to 777Tiger
quote:
headed to the bone yard
Unfortunately with a quickness.
Posted on 5/7/15 at 11:05 pm to Pavoloco83
All this talk about Russia invading Europe is ridiculous anyway. It's 2015, not 1965. Russia has far more to fear from China than a Europe that it relies on for export markets.
If another major war breaks out in our lifetimes it's likely to be Russia & India against China.
If another major war breaks out in our lifetimes it's likely to be Russia & India against China.
Posted on 5/8/15 at 10:44 am to WeeWee
WeeWee, I suppose we are simply going to have to agree to disagree.
Posted on 5/8/15 at 11:11 am to TigersSEC2010
Posted on 5/8/15 at 11:51 am to Vito Andolini
quote:
While I understand that line of thought, you must remember, one of the original ideas behind NATO was to keep Germany down, so to speak, in other words, we probably don't want a militarized Germany threatening its neighbors again...been there, done that.
Yes, thanks for reminding me about that.
Some time ago, I was involved in a sort of "think tank" during my time stationed in Germany. It was a symposium of NATO officers and academics, and we took a week or so to examine and analyze the military/geo-political situation.
The German officers to whom I spoke fully understood the mission of the German Armed Forces: to defend the German people and the German nation.
They agreed with me that it would be nice if the German armed forces were strong enough to accomplish that mission. We agreed that a significant constraint was the over-arching fear of her Western neighbors that a strong Germany would again start a war.
The German academics at the symposium were militantly adamant that Germany must never again be militarily strong for the reasons that you cite. They said that NATO was responsible for German self-defense.
The problem with this view is that NATO is the USA. If NATO is responsible for the self defense of the German people and the German nation, that means the US military is responsible for that.
Does any German officer or politician have the moral right to abrogate this duty of self-defense? I mean this as a question of philosophy and morality.
In my view the answer is no. Germany is on the wrong path. The USA and the US military should no longer be viewed as the "Mama" and "Papa" of the German people.
Germany must be prepared and capable of defending HERSELF.
Poland must be prepared and capable of defending HERSELF.
IMHO, it's old fashioned and out moded to expect that NATO ( the US military ) will be there like Mama and Papa to protect baby Germany from the big bully to the East.
I understand that Germany may be in WAY too deep with european socialism to afford to defend themselves.
I do not and I will never consider that to be my problem or the problem of the USA.
It's time for a new Poland and a new Germany to rise and be ready to defend themselves. If they can't then, they may end up being at the mercy of Russia on some future day.
I'm not convinced that this would be our problem, because it's not our job to defend a foreign nation that refuses to defend itself. The USA doesn't have that kind of money.
RIGHT NOW, of course, NATO says that it is our problem, but, I'm looking towards the future. How much longer can the NATO paradigm last? Will it last forever?
In my view, the USA should keep NATO strong and vigilant for the moment. However, there should be some long-range thinking and planning amongst NATO members towards a day when NATO may exist, but, each member nation will be required to be militarily strong enough to defend ITSELF.
This post was edited on 5/8/15 at 11:59 am
Posted on 5/8/15 at 12:17 pm to Champagne
Nato for too long has relied on the US to carry the burden and act as more as a backup unit. Americans talk about other countries not be able to defend themselves but overlook Europe. The military expenditures by European countries is not enough. We're talking about a region where the US entertained putting up a missile defense system on a 18 trillion dollar gdp. Let them pay for one. Any successful defense of Europe will have to involve the US to a great extent.
Posted on 5/8/15 at 12:20 pm to Kino74
Here's why I think we would easily beat Russia. We can produce bada** videos of soon to be retiring A-10's in HD...
Shooting starts around 2:30 mark
A-10 go-pro
Shooting starts around 2:30 mark
A-10 go-pro
Posted on 5/8/15 at 12:23 pm to MyNameIsNobody
quote:
west propaganda....the Daily Mail is like The Onion right.
the DM is trash but this isn't propaganda
Posted on 5/8/15 at 12:27 pm to WeeWee
The Russian economy is in the shitter no way to deny it.
Posted on 5/8/15 at 12:33 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Here's why I think we would easily beat Russia. We can produce bada** videos of soon to be retiring A-10's in HD...
Shooting starts around 2:30 mark
A-10 go-pro
It would not be as easy as you think.
And here's why.
quote:
Basic missile system specifications
Target acquisition range (by TAR 9S18M1, 9S18M1-1)
Range: 140[clarification needed]
Altitude: 60 meters – 25 kilometers (197 feet – 15.5 miles)
Firing groups in one division: up to 6 (with one command post)
Firing groups operating in a sector
90° in azimuth, 0–7° and 7–14° in elevation
45° in azimuth, 14–52° in elevation
Radar mast lifting height (for TAR 9S36): 21 meters
Reloading of 4 missiles by TEL from itself: around 15 minutes
Combat readiness time: no more than 5 minutes
Kill probability (by one missile): 90–95%
Target engagement zone
Aircraft
Altitude: 15 meters – 25 kilometers (50 feet – 15.5 miles)
Range: 3–42 kilometres (2–26 miles)
Tactical ballistic missiles
Altitude: 2.0–16 kilometres (1.2–9.9 miles)
Range: 3–20 kilometres (1.9–12.4 miles)
Sea targets: up to 25 kilometres (16 miles)
Land targets: up to 15 kilometres (9.3 miles)
And that's not even the most modern system they have.
We could beat them. But it would not be as easy as you think and we would have to take losses, maybe even heavy losses, in the process.
Page 24 of 25
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News