It all depends if Russia believe that they are further down on the same hitlist, in which case they might not wait until they are the last ones left

World Wars are useful to the Bankers as it gives them the opportunity to reshape the world, people will easily accept major changes when coming out of a World War. If we had a world war, the cards would be shuffled, and perhaps the Bankers will come out with their United Nations in control

(after the 4 minute mark in particular)

I don't know either to be honest, it's one of them words conspiracy nuts seem to like using though. Thought it might be appropriate in this thread.

Not going into your second point until WHP responds, want to see what he is actually trying to "say" rather than what he is typing.

Don't think Russia wants any problems either to be quite honest.

Actually not. In 21th century you don't need a big army to deal with enemy. Nuclear weapon is the only power. Everything else for banana-country-level conflicts. Why can't you understand it?

Against defenseless nation. I think it will be very different if it happens against the Russians.

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

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".

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

/end thread.

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.

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

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).

No shit man. Fucking racists. :1orglaugh

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?

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

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.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
:warning
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

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

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.

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

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"

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?

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.

Exactly.

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? :pimp

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

I need a mocha...bye

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").

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Russia is no joke

You can't be serious. :(

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.