Russian warships to enter Syrian waters - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Just Alex · 11-19-2011, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Pheer

It doesnt need to be. It can carry a nuclear warhead and it flies low enough to avoid air defense.

This whole thread is starting to sound like a bunch of Star Trek nerds arguing with Star Wars nerds.

All it takes is one reaching each side. I don't think US or Russia are stupid enough. What difference does it make if US has 5000 and Russia 3500? All it takes is to drop one in each - DC, NY, La and Salt Lake City (just because I hate that place).

Just Alex · 11-19-2011, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Pheer

It doesnt need to be. It can carry a nuclear warhead and it flies low enough to avoid air defense.

This whole thread is starting to sound like a bunch of Star Trek nerds arguing with Star Wars nerds.

No shit man. Fucking racists.

Si · 11-19-2011, 05:09 PM

So WeHateAnythingThatIsn'tSomeKindOfBullshitConspirac y, has nothing to reply with in regards to the question:

What are you saying? Russia is going to stand against the "west" ? Is that it?

halfpint · 11-19-2011, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Alex

Boy, you're fucking clueless.

Russia possesses the largest stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in the world.
Russia also has a large but unknown number of tactical nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_...ss_destruction

Read what I posted.. Russia might have the largest stockpile of WMD as a single country and it also means not all of them are nuclear either as we were talking "Nuclear". Now combine the whole of the wests WMD we have far more including nuclear weapons

Just Alex · 11-19-2011, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si

So WeHateAnythingThatIsn'tSomeKindOfBullshitConspirac y, has nothing to reply with in regards to the question:

What are you saying? Russia is going to stand against the "west" ? Is that it?

I don't know who you're asking, but from looks of it they are determined to protect their interests. If "west" gets there, which I doubt, they will stand against us.

directfiesta · 11-19-2011, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Right. Russia kicks ass. Thats why an army of 100,000+ with MIGs, tanks, attack helicopters, artillery, armored troop transports and so on, couldn't subdue a handful of uneducated, poorly armed Chechens with only AKs, RPG's and sniper rifles in less than 2 wars and almost a decade of trying.

But sure, they have an ailing nuclear stockpile, much of which can't even be accounted for. We'll just assume they have it.

Note: they are waiting for successfull US trainers ... once they win something ...

Just Alex · 11-19-2011, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halfpint

Read what I posted.. Russia might have the largest stockpile of WMD as a single country and it also means not all of them are nuclear either as we were talking "Nuclear". Now combine the whole of the wests WMD we have far more including nuclear weapons

All of the west? The 20 that French have and 10 of UK? You really think those guys are going to join pissing contest with russians knowing that they are the first one to go down? Well maybe Brits will just because they are #1 investor in the US economy, but we know how brave Frenchies are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uclear_weapons

Here, do your math dude.

moeloubani · 11-19-2011, 05:16 PM

the reason russia would come out on top in a war with the US isnt because of their nuclear weapons, both sides have enough to do all the nuking they need to do but americans wouldn't be able to handle the resulting hardships of a post-nuclear war world as well as the russians

wehateporn · 11-19-2011, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si

So WeHateAnythingThatIsn'tSomeKindOfBullshitConspirac y has nothing to reply with in regards to the question:

What are you saying? Russia is going to stand against the "west" ? Is that it?

I didn't know you were asking me. I was just posting information to see what people's opinions are, but since you'd like my opinion here goes. The Bankers/UN want control of every country on the planet, there's a hitlist, Russia and China know this, as do India, that's why they've been performing drills together. They know that it will be their turn. If we look into the UN's documents, the idea is to eventually disarm every nation and for the UN to be the only ones with weapons/armies, leaving the UN in complete control. If we have a world war, with millions of deaths, it would be the perfect excuse for the UN to take over everyone's weapons i.e "This old system is not working, we're doing this for your own good"

just a punk · 11-19-2011, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halfpint

If it ever did come down to a nuclear war between Russia and the west which i hope it never does btw, the west would oblitirate Russia whith nukes. Combined the west has far more nukes and weaponary tech advances than Russia

LOL Isn't it's time to do some calculations? Really? And not just about strategic nukes which are intended for the "oversea friends" but also about tactical ones (for the rest of the "west")?

BTW, how many nukes needed to eliminate all the life on our planet?

Just Alex · 11-19-2011, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Note: they are waiting for successfull US trainers ... once they win something ...

What are you talking about? Didn't we win in Vietnam? Wasn't mission accomplished in Iraq? And things are going so well in Afghanistan, yet we are still there.

just a punk · 11-19-2011, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Alex

Russia also has a large but unknown number of tactical nuclear weapons.

Exactly.

just a punk · 11-19-2011, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Pheer

It doesnt need to be. It can carry a nuclear warhead and it flies low enough to avoid air defense.

Fired from where? To what distance? Can they reach all those Russian missile launch systems in Siberia? Where did you learn the military science? Really?

TheSenator · 11-19-2011, 05:22 PM

Is Syria in THE AFicas anyways...who cares???

I need a mocha...bye

just a punk · 11-19-2011, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Si

So WeHateAnythingThatIsn'tSomeKindOfBullshitConspirac y, has nothing to reply with in regards to the question:

What are you saying? Russia is going to stand against the "west" ? Is that it?

Even the stupid question deserves an answer. Russia is going to protect its own interests in Syria (don't give a fuck about the "west").

directfiesta · 11-19-2011, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Pheer

Man, you drop 2 atomic bombs on a country and you just never hear the end of it.

damn !!!!! get over it ... what is next .. the jews reminding us everyday what the germans did to them ????

cykoe6 · 11-19-2011, 05:32 PM

The US would never directly engage with Russia for all of the reasons cyberxxx has mentioned. Russia cannot project power all over the world like the US but they can certainly destroy the US in a nuclear fight...... which is why it will never happen.

Mr Pheer · 11-19-2011, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

Fired from where? To what distance? Can they reach all those Russian missile launch systems in Siberia? Where did you learn the military science? Really?

Dont be so closed-minded. Just because I only mentioned Tomahawks doesnt mean thats all we have. Of course we have ICBM launching submarines as well.

Its well known that the land based nukes arent the real deterrent. Its the submarines, because you cant track them. On either side.

halfpint · 11-19-2011, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Alex

All of the west? The 20 that French have and 10 of UK? You really think those guys are going to join pissing contest with russians knowing that they are the first one to go down? Well maybe Brits will just because they are #1 investor in the US economy, but we know how brave Frenchies are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uclear_weapons

Here, do your math dude.

And now read this dude

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheet...ponswhohaswhat

and that wiki article does not include Israel either

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_...ss_destruction

Mr Pheer · 11-19-2011, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

Fired from where? To what distance? Can they reach all those Russian missile launch systems in Siberia? Where did you learn the military science? Really?

And another clue for ya...

Nukes werent designed to take out other nukes, they were designed to annihilate as much population as possible and cause widespread area-denial because of residual radiation and fallout.

Now I've had enough of this. Spock and Darth Vader get in a fight, who wins? I dont give a shit.

femdomdestiny · 11-19-2011, 05:47 PM

Why do you bother typing at all? US only attack small countries and those without chance of defending. (so what Happened in Georgia for example? NATO council was probably in Mcdonalds at the time, unaware of situation there = couldn't do anything since Russians were near enough)...which means, nuke war will never happen since it would be end of world as we know it and no one is stupid to do so.

If it ever started , remaining USA would have much bigger problem because of ethnical difference on it's soil and "culture" where every idiot have a gun , plus smaller territory and consumer nation that are panicking even when there is blackout -(NY).

Anyway, every smart person don't want a war ,(problem is that there are tons of idiots thinking that war is something cool and hoping it will soon start in Syria) so let's get back to work, now , please.

GAMEFINEST · 11-19-2011, 06:08 PM

Russia is no joke

TheSquealer · 11-19-2011, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Pheer

Spock and Darth Vader get in a fight, who wins? I dont give a shit.

You can't be serious.

Just Alex · 11-19-2011, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halfpint

And now read this dude

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheet...ponswhohaswhat

and that wiki article does not include Israel either

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_...ss_destruction

and your point?

Quote:

Russia: Approximately 2,400 operational strategic warheads , approximately 2,000 operational tactical warheads, and approximately 7,000 stockpiled strategic and tactical warheads.

United States: 5,113 active and inactive [1] nuclear warheads and approximately 3,500 warheads retired and awaiting dismantlement. The 5,113 active and inactive nuclear warhead stockpile includes 1,968 strategic warheads, approximately 500 operational tactical weapons, and approximately 2,645 inactive warheads.

7 fucking thousand stockpile warheads. Uk has what? Up to 225?

Quote:

United Kingdom: Fewer than 160 deployed strategic warheads, total stockpile of up to 225.

You stupid or something? All it takes is two to land here and two there.
One on DC and one on NYC and war is over.

And Israel? jews will be gone in first 5 minutes of this game. Iran will level the fuck out of them first chance they get.

Rochard · 11-19-2011, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

Rusty by still deadly

Was that the rocket with the Mars explorer on it that failed to get into orbit? That's like the forth try in the past two months, isn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

Yeah it was just a civil satellite. That time...

But once again, in case of WWIII, no one will be using "100,000+ with MIGs, tanks, attack helicopters, artillery, armored troop transports and so on" against the real EXTERNAL enemy. At least according to the official Russian military doctrine which isists using of tactical nukes even in "small conflicts" (e.g. against aircraft carriers).

I believe their military doctrine states they can use nukes only if their country was both invaded AND threatened.

I would imagine that's common with all nuclear countries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

There is no USSR anymore, but it doesn't change anything. Russia is the only post-USSR country that have all the nuclear potential of Soviet Union. Everything doesn't matter.

Yea they still have a military and nukes but they are still not what they used to be. Hell it wasn't til just a few years ago that Russia's Navy was still mothballed.

One nuke - one carrier. Easy arithmetic, isn't it? According to the US sources, only one old good battle cruiser like "Moskva" equipped with Granit is able to destroy at least two aircraft carriers.

People don't seem to understand the term "blue water navy". This means that their Navy can operate anywhere in the world at sea. You can't just sent a warship around the world; It needs to be resupplied at friendly ports, etc. The only countries that have blue water Navys are the US, UK, and the French.

In other words, Russia might have the ability to destroy an aircraft carrier, but this assumes that it would be able to find it and engage it without being taken out long in advance.

Just Alex · 11-19-2011, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Was that the rocket with the Mars explorer on it that failed to get into orbit? That's like the forth try in the past two months, isn't it?

Funny how you mention Russian space rockets. Remind me whose rockets we'll be taking to space next 3 years after Discovery program retired itself? Of snap, those fucking Russians again. Because their rusty spacecrafts haven't been losing parts in the sky and blowing up.

porno jew · 11-19-2011, 06:24 PM

i think we need the military intelligence of gfy's resident sub commander in here stat.

halfpint · 11-19-2011, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Alex

and your point?

7 fucking thousand stockpile warheads. Uk has what? Up to 225?

You stupid or something? All it takes is two to land here and two there.
One on DC and one on NYC and war is over.

And Israel? jews will be gone in first 5 minutes of this game. Iran will level the fuck out of them first chance they get.

Russia hasent got a hope in hell against the west and Iran would have a very hard time leveling Israel on its own. Apart from the west having more nukes than Russia our weapon technology is more advanced Our nuclear subs alone would take Russia out

Israel's nuclear-capable ballistic missiles are believed to be buried so far underground that they would survive a nuclear attack.[7][8] Additionally, Israel is believed to have an offshore nuclear second-strike capability, using submarine launched nuclear-capable cruise missiles, which can be launched from the Israeli Navy's Dolphin-class submarines.[9] Although the Israeli Air Force lacks strategic bombers to deliver nuclear weapons over long range, its F-15I and F-16I Sufa fighter aircraft are capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

Just Alex · 11-19-2011, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

People don't seem to understand the term "blue water navy". This means that their Navy can operate anywhere in the world at sea. You can't just sent a warship around the world; It needs to be resupplied at friendly ports, etc. The only countries that have blue water Navys are the US, UK, and the French.

In other words, Russia might have the ability to destroy an aircraft carrier, but this assumes that it would be able to find it and engage it without being taken out long in advance.

Blue water, brown water. Who cares. US isn't destroying any Russian boats. We know better than that. Its not Haiti or Panama you will fighting with.

Just Alex · 11-19-2011, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halfpint

Russia hasent got a hope in hell against the west and Iran would have a very hard time leveling Israel on its own. Apart from the west having more nukes than Russia our weapon technology is more advanced Our nuclear subs alone would take Russia out

Israel's nuclear-capable ballistic missiles are believed to be buried so far underground that they would survive a nuclear attack.[7][8] Additionally, Israel is believed to have an offshore nuclear second-strike capability, using submarine launched nuclear-capable cruise missiles, which can be launched from the Israeli Navy's Dolphin-class submarines.[9] Although the Israeli Air Force lacks strategic bombers to deliver nuclear weapons over long range, its F-15I and F-16I Sufa fighter aircraft are capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

Kid, God loves stupid people too. He's giving you kiss as we speak.
Don't want to waste my time on you any longer.

Rochard · 11-19-2011, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Alex

Blue water, brown water. Who cares. US isn't destroying any Russian boats. We know better than that. Its not Haiti or Panama you will fighting with.

Very valid point really.

halfpint · 11-19-2011, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Alex

Kid, God loves stupid people too. He's giving you kiss as we speak.
Don't want to waste my time on you any longer.

lol im most prob a lot older than you kid and you know yourself that Russia on its own wouldent stand a chance against the west, but throw China into the equation along side Russia against the west and we would have a huge problem

Just Alex · 11-19-2011, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halfpint

lol im most prob a lot older than you kid and you know yourself that Russia on its own wouldent stand a chance against the west, but throw China into the equation along side Russia against the west and we would have a huge problem

Sure thing kid. Keep on racking those posts for your internet credo, son. Im sure you served in the military and know all about things you tried (and failed) to talk about here.

Mr Pheer · 11-19-2011, 09:43 PM

I'm playing MW3!! Or is it just GFY again...

Sausage · 11-19-2011, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halfpint

Russia wouldent stand a chance against the west but Russia and China together would

Hell ... Niue and China would. You don't wanna go up against China.

Dcat · 11-19-2011, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Just another case of the Russian govt trying to feel big in a world they are not so big in anymore..

Where have you been?

Putin strengthened Russia?s economy and restored its global influence

"Vladimir Putin became Russia?s president in 2000. Under his reign the Russian economy increased by 6 fold, becoming the 7th largest in the world. Under Putin, Russian industry grew by 76%, investments increased by 125%, real incomes more than doubled and the average monthly salary increased sevenfold from $80 to $640. From 2000 to 2006 the volume of consumer credit increased 45 times and the middle class grew from 8 million to 55 million people. The number of people living below the poverty line decreased from 30% in 2000 to 14% in 2008.

In his 8 years governance, Putin had largely restored Russian military might and influence. He formed alliance with North Korea, China, Mongolia and Kazakhstan, effectively securing Russian eastern and southern borders.

The Russia now and 20 years ago is of stark contrast. The country is no longer poor ? it has built up $516 billion in foreign reserves, the world?s third largest; only after China and Japan. Russia has surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world?s largest oil exporter, given that it is also the world?s largest gas exporter, the Russia today is an energy superpower. Russia, a strong scientific, aerospace and engineering nation, is widely believed to possess the world?s second most advanced military after the USA."

..continued here

EukerVoorn · 11-20-2011, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Alex

Thats why they are trying to get there first and protect their interests before Obama and friends decides to bring more "democracy" to ragheads in the middle east. Russians lost a shit load of money and contracts in Iraq and now Libya. I don't think they are too excited to lose more in Syria in the name of "western democracy".

Everything you write makes a lot of sense and I totally agree with you on everything Alex... can I cum on your face now?

EukerVoorn · 11-20-2011, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Pheer

Man, you drop 2 atomic bombs on a country and you just never hear the end of it.

Read what Alex wrote about tactical nukes. They can work very locally... just a city, or a small town. The US threatened to use them during the first Iraqi war but their European allies strongly objected to that.

And someone mentioned "Nashi"? I think he meant Nazi?

just a punk · 11-20-2011, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Pheer

Nukes werent designed to take out other nukes, they were designed to annihilate as much population as possible and cause widespread area-denial because of residual radiation and fallout.

You know it from some Hollywood movie. Right?

Get a clue and stop acting like a clown.

just a punk · 11-20-2011, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Was that the rocket with the Mars explorer on it that failed to get into orbit? That's like the forth try in the past two months, isn't it?

Why you are so lazy to read about it yourself and asking me for the explanation? Ok if you ask I'll tell you the "secret truth". The rocket which set the explorer to the orbit did its work just fine. However the explorer own march engine didn't start for some reason (you know shit happens).

Any more questions? Perhaps you'd like to tell us something about the use space technologies? Challenger? Columbia? How all those modern US astronauts are getting to the orbit? Riding Harry Potter's broom?

Guys it really looks like you are getting all your knowledge from movies like "Armageddon", "Sunshine" etc. Get real please

Russia has its own interests in Syria and it will realize them anyways. No one will want to fuck with Russia because of all those reasons I've already pointed above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I believe their military doctrine states they can use nukes only if their country was both invaded AND threatened.

Nope. It also allows to use the nukes against ANY country which attacked Russian army units anywhere. I'm going to repeat it one more time: tactical nukes is the only weapon which have to be used against aircraft carriers (at least according to the official Russian military doctrine).

marlboroack · 11-20-2011, 02:16 AM

Russians are the last people i would want to kick in the nutz

crockett · 11-20-2011, 02:56 AM

You guys can measure cock size with nuke counts all day long. It really doesn't matter if one side has 50 or 2000.. Once you hit a certain number it's "mutual assured destruction".. Meaning no one wins..

You can launch 2000 at the other side but those 50 headed at you are still going to end your day.

On top of this it's very unlikely that all of Russia's nuke stoke pile is still launchable. Really, you think they actively kept them in shape during those years after the USSR crashed and continue to do it today?

You have any idea what the costs are? The current count of "active" nuclear weapons is 1,950 for the US & 2,430 for Russia. Really does it matter a few hundred here or there when probably 50 would end any country on earth?

Now as far as war if it's nuclear it really doesn't matter because no one wins except those tribal fucks in Africa that no body will give a fuck about bombing.

As far as any sort of conventional war.. Russia is just like China.. They simply can't wage a conventional war out side of driving distance of their own boarders. Unless it's against a smaller country but certainly not against the US or any of our allies that we would protect.

You can have all the troops, tanks & jets you want, but if you can't get them to the theater they are worthless.

This is why the US continues to be the Only real world super power today because we are the only nation that can project it's power by actual force rather than idle threats. When Russian or China sends a few Naval ships somewhere like this current deal. it's essentially a idle threat and a flap fest because it's not like it would win if there is an engagement. Added to this if there was an engagement they just lost their only aircraft carrier and most of their Navy.

I'm sure eventually China will step up to the plate if their economy doesn't crash and burn due to inflation. Russia on the other hand will likely never be a work power that can once again project it's force anywhere in the world.

Russia will likely end up like France or England. In the list of countries that once had world wide projection of power but the times changed and that power and need for it no longer exists.

Hell the US will probably eventually be on the same list at some point if we don't get out shit in order. One thing is certain history has proven that no world power has ever stayed on top.. Eventually they all fall down.

Mr Pheer · 11-20-2011, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

You know it from some Hollywood movie. Right?

Get a clue and stop acting like a clown.

The only thing I know about Hollywood movies is how much bullshit they are based on what I saw in Blackhawk Down versus what I saw in the Battle of Mogadishu in October of 1993.

What I know about the rest is what I learned during 7 years in the Army, with a secret security clearance, 14 medals and 2 combat deployments. And although I never fired a nuclear artillery round while I was with the 10th Mountain Division, we did train for them, including flying to an Army depot in the north eastern US and seeing the real shit. Along with other munitions that people dont like to hear about.

So take your clown and stuff it back in your ass.

just a punk · 11-20-2011, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

On top of this it's very unlikely that all of Russia's nuke stoke pile is still launchable.

Yes of course. Nuclear weapon is a main priority of Russian military doctrine. I don't even want to comment on all that nonsense you posted above - too many letters and zero information. It like you live in some parallel Universe...

just a punk · 11-20-2011, 03:29 AM

Mr Pheer · 11-20-2011, 03:37 AM

100 rusting Russian shrimp trawlers

just a punk · 11-20-2011, 03:39 AM

101 US "space" shuttles

Mr Pheer · 11-20-2011, 03:45 AM

Goodnight cyberxxx. Dont spill your cheap vodka.

crockett · 11-20-2011, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

Yes of course. Nuclear weapon is a main priority of Russian military doctrine. I don't even want to comment on all that nonsense you posted above - too many letters and zero information. It like you live in some parallel Universe...

It's not nonsense it's true..

Lets say the US and it's allies decide they want to attack Syria. Now lets say Russia decides they want to forcibly try to stop the US & it's allies. What can Russia do?

The "only" option Russia has is Nuclear and we all know Russia isn't going to risk nuclear war over Syria. If Russia tried to fight a conventional war, you would never get anything in the theater.

The only conventional manor in which Russia could help Syria is by supplying arms for a insurgent style war. Russians aren't getting tanks or aircraft or large numbers of troops into that theater. This isn't WW2 times anymore troop movements are seen long before they would get anywhere close.

Of course none of this will ever happen because we all know the end result. Hence the reason I say it's just a bunch of cock flapn, because there is no ability for you to project conventional power in the region even though it's almost in your back yard. This is why I say Russia is no longer a world power, due to no ability to project it's power world wide.

Russia is a regional power and a economic power and has a lot of nukes. Nukes only make sure everyone dies, but they don't win wars or allow you to project power else where in the world.

just a punk · 11-20-2011, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Pheer

Goodnight cyberxxx. Dont spill your cheap vodka.

I see you got the proper avatar

Sorry but I really can't take seriously a person who compares ICBMs with light-weight subsonic TLAMs...

However... it's only 2:49 PM now in Moscow, so I'm not going to sleep at least within next 12 hours (BTW gonna watch M-1 Global with Fedor Emelianenko soon)

Also I don't drink vodka (can't afford even a bottle for my poor income

)

11-19-2011, 05:22 PM	#64
TheSenator Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 13,332	Is Syria in THE AFicas anyways...who cares??? I need a mocha...bye __________________ ISeekGirls.com since 2005

11-19-2011, 05:32 PM	#67
cykoe6 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vegas Posts: 4,499	The US would never directly engage with Russia for all of the reasons cyberxxx has mentioned. Russia cannot project power all over the world like the US but they can certainly destroy the US in a nuclear fight...... which is why it will never happen. __________________ бабки, шлюхи, сила

11-19-2011, 05:47 PM	#71
femdomdestiny Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 5,169	Why do you bother typing at all? US only attack small countries and those without chance of defending. (so what Happened in Georgia for example? NATO council was probably in Mcdonalds at the time, unaware of situation there = couldn't do anything since Russians were near enough)...which means, nuke war will never happen since it would be end of world as we know it and no one is stupid to do so. If it ever started , remaining USA would have much bigger problem because of ethnical difference on it's soil and "culture" where every idiot have a gun , plus smaller territory and consumer nation that are panicking even when there is blackout -(NY). Anyway, every smart person don't want a war ,(problem is that there are tons of idiots thinking that war is something cool and hoping it will soon start in Syria) so let's get back to work, now , please. __________________ Femdom Destiny -------------------------------------------- ICQ: 463-630-426 email: webmaster(at)femdomdestiny.com

11-19-2011, 06:08 PM	#72
GAMEFINEST Make STACK$ Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: sexy time Posts: 14,423	Russia is no joke __________________ Compound interest.

11-20-2011, 02:56 AM	#92
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	You guys can measure cock size with nuke counts all day long. It really doesn't matter if one side has 50 or 2000.. Once you hit a certain number it's "mutual assured destruction".. Meaning no one wins.. You can launch 2000 at the other side but those 50 headed at you are still going to end your day. On top of this it's very unlikely that all of Russia's nuke stoke pile is still launchable. Really, you think they actively kept them in shape during those years after the USSR crashed and continue to do it today? You have any idea what the costs are? The current count of "active" nuclear weapons is 1,950 for the US & 2,430 for Russia. Really does it matter a few hundred here or there when probably 50 would end any country on earth? Now as far as war if it's nuclear it really doesn't matter because no one wins except those tribal fucks in Africa that no body will give a fuck about bombing. As far as any sort of conventional war.. Russia is just like China.. They simply can't wage a conventional war out side of driving distance of their own boarders. Unless it's against a smaller country but certainly not against the US or any of our allies that we would protect. You can have all the troops, tanks & jets you want, but if you can't get them to the theater they are worthless. This is why the US continues to be the Only real world super power today because we are the only nation that can project it's power by actual force rather than idle threats. When Russian or China sends a few Naval ships somewhere like this current deal. it's essentially a idle threat and a flap fest because it's not like it would win if there is an engagement. Added to this if there was an engagement they just lost their only aircraft carrier and most of their Navy. I'm sure eventually China will step up to the plate if their economy doesn't crash and burn due to inflation. Russia on the other hand will likely never be a work power that can once again project it's force anywhere in the world. Russia will likely end up like France or England. In the list of countries that once had world wide projection of power but the times changed and that power and need for it no longer exists. Hell the US will probably eventually be on the same list at some point if we don't get out shit in order. One thing is certain history has proven that no world power has ever stayed on top.. Eventually they all fall down. Last edited by crockett; 11-20-2011 at 03:11 AM..

11-19-2011, 05:09 PM	#53
Si Such Fun! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 13,900	So WeHateAnythingThatIsn'tSomeKindOfBullshitConspirac y, has nothing to reply with in regards to the question: What are you saying? Russia is going to stand against the "west" ? Is that it?

11-19-2011, 05:16 PM	#58
moeloubani Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Ontario Posts: 4,235	the reason russia would come out on top in a war with the US isnt because of their nuclear weapons, both sides have enough to do all the nuking they need to do but americans wouldn't be able to handle the resulting hardships of a post-nuclear war world as well as the russians

11-19-2011, 06:24 PM	#77
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	i think we need the military intelligence of gfy's resident sub commander in here stat.

11-19-2011, 09:43 PM	#84
Mr Pheer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 20,885	I'm playing MW3!! Or is it just GFY again...

11-20-2011, 02:16 AM	#91
marlboroack So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: ☣ Posts: 9,327	Russians are the last people i would want to kick in the nutz

11-20-2011, 03:29 AM	#95
just a punk So fuckin' bored Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 32,383	__________________ Obey the Cowgod Last edited by just a punk; 11-20-2011 at 03:37 AM..

11-20-2011, 03:37 AM	#96
Mr Pheer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 20,885	100 rusting Russian shrimp trawlers

11-20-2011, 03:39 AM	#97
just a punk So fuckin' bored Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 32,383	101 US "space" shuttles __________________ Obey the Cowgod

11-20-2011, 03:45 AM	#98
Mr Pheer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 20,885	Goodnight cyberxxx. Dont spill your cheap vodka.