Russians get a bit nosey..
- Thread starter .Griff.
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 1,595
aayzof said:
You could say that.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 5,798
they struggle over iraq and afghanistan without nukes.
It's not necessarily the danger of them launching a bid to take over the world. It is their aggressive foreign policy which has provoked Russia. The US is largely to blame for the global insecurity felt today. The journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, for example, warns that American foreign policy carries 'an appreciable risk of ultimate doom.' Pursuit of total world security by one state (America), including the right to wage war at will regardless of law, entails the insecurity of others who will inevitably react. Russia's resumption of bomber patrols is an example of a reflex reaction, caused by a culmination of aggressive American action in the Gulf, huge American military spending (approximately equal to the rest of the world combined) and ambitious 'defence' programmes by America that are actually first-strike weapons. See the proposed deployment of missile 'shields' throughout Europe.
America, for example, is hell bent on weaponising space. In the Clinton era Washington proclaimed that 'domination the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment' was vital. US intelligence predicts that globalisation of the world economy will lead to 'deeper economic stagnation, political instability and cultural alienation.' This falls within the Clinton doctrine that, as prescribed by the US, America may resort to unilateral use of military power to gain 'uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources.' Furthermore, government planners urged America to portray itself as 'irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked.'
The Bush administration has expanded the Clinton doctrine to ownership of space, expanding the first-strike option and enabling America to deliver a payload to anywhere on the face of the earth within minutes. This could be conventional or nuclear and is a thoroughly terrifying prospect for every other state. Indeed, the EU, China and Russia among others have expressed their concern.
Russia has already responded to the Bush government's huge increase in military spending by drastically increasing its own capabilities, and reacted aggressively to the Pentagon's proposed weaponisation of space by stating that it 'would consider using force if necessary to respond.' The missile 'defence' system, widley recognised as a first strike weapon is particularly concerning to China, Chomsky argues, describing the policy as aggressively defensive. Already, China is developing missiles capable od delivering conventional and non-conventional payloads to the US continent and although the US currently accounts for 95% of global miltary space expenditures, China is predicted to vastly up its spending, increasing the risk for everyone.
I should make it clear, however, that thus far China has maintained 'by far the most restrained pattern of military deployment' of the nuclear powers. It has also led efforts in the UN to preserve space for peaceful purposes. The US and Israel have barred all moves to prevent an arms race in space.
Regarding the Russians, Nunn says that the sharp expansion of American military programmes tilt the strategic balance in ways that make 'Russia more likely to launch weapons upon warning of an attack, with or without waiting to see if the warning is accurate. The threat is enahcned by the fact that the Russian early warning system is in a state of serious disrepair. Additionally, he argues that America's aggressive foriegn policy has led Russia to significantly expand its arsenal of even-more-lethal nuclear and biological weapons. In doing so, these must be transported across Russia and may fall into the hands of terrorists.
So yeah, in short Russia is simply responding to outrageous American forigen policy with a rather restrained approach. I would be terrified if I was Russia or China!! America has already assigned itself the ability to attack whoever it wants if the country needs energy supplies or access to trade. Russia has vast energy resources, second only to those of Canada and Saudi Arabia, I think (or something like that). They are not as technologically advanced as the West by any stretch of the imagination but the huge amount of money flowing into the country since the free market increases their capacity.
It is the incredible American insecurity and paranoia that has been prevalent since the country’s creation which will cause the next major global conflict.
I'm studying current American foreign policy and the making of American foreign policy since WWII next year and will be writing my dissertation on the 'new Cold War' and am in the process of gathering my research. Naturally I found this thread interesting! It's all rather exciting at the moment!!
America, for example, is hell bent on weaponising space. In the Clinton era Washington proclaimed that 'domination the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment' was vital. US intelligence predicts that globalisation of the world economy will lead to 'deeper economic stagnation, political instability and cultural alienation.' This falls within the Clinton doctrine that, as prescribed by the US, America may resort to unilateral use of military power to gain 'uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources.' Furthermore, government planners urged America to portray itself as 'irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked.'
The Bush administration has expanded the Clinton doctrine to ownership of space, expanding the first-strike option and enabling America to deliver a payload to anywhere on the face of the earth within minutes. This could be conventional or nuclear and is a thoroughly terrifying prospect for every other state. Indeed, the EU, China and Russia among others have expressed their concern.
Russia has already responded to the Bush government's huge increase in military spending by drastically increasing its own capabilities, and reacted aggressively to the Pentagon's proposed weaponisation of space by stating that it 'would consider using force if necessary to respond.' The missile 'defence' system, widley recognised as a first strike weapon is particularly concerning to China, Chomsky argues, describing the policy as aggressively defensive. Already, China is developing missiles capable od delivering conventional and non-conventional payloads to the US continent and although the US currently accounts for 95% of global miltary space expenditures, China is predicted to vastly up its spending, increasing the risk for everyone.
I should make it clear, however, that thus far China has maintained 'by far the most restrained pattern of military deployment' of the nuclear powers. It has also led efforts in the UN to preserve space for peaceful purposes. The US and Israel have barred all moves to prevent an arms race in space.
Regarding the Russians, Nunn says that the sharp expansion of American military programmes tilt the strategic balance in ways that make 'Russia more likely to launch weapons upon warning of an attack, with or without waiting to see if the warning is accurate. The threat is enahcned by the fact that the Russian early warning system is in a state of serious disrepair. Additionally, he argues that America's aggressive foriegn policy has led Russia to significantly expand its arsenal of even-more-lethal nuclear and biological weapons. In doing so, these must be transported across Russia and may fall into the hands of terrorists.
So yeah, in short Russia is simply responding to outrageous American forigen policy with a rather restrained approach. I would be terrified if I was Russia or China!! America has already assigned itself the ability to attack whoever it wants if the country needs energy supplies or access to trade. Russia has vast energy resources, second only to those of Canada and Saudi Arabia, I think (or something like that). They are not as technologically advanced as the West by any stretch of the imagination but the huge amount of money flowing into the country since the free market increases their capacity.
It is the incredible American insecurity and paranoia that has been prevalent since the country’s creation which will cause the next major global conflict.
I'm studying current American foreign policy and the making of American foreign policy since WWII next year and will be writing my dissertation on the 'new Cold War' and am in the process of gathering my research. Naturally I found this thread interesting! It's all rather exciting at the moment!!
mechanicom said:
I wouldn't say so. Sure he can't run that year, but he can back someone, and then return in 2012. Putin is stupidly popular in Russia, with aproval ratings into the 80% at times.
I will bet that 2008 will not be the last we see of him in a position power.
Hate to double post but:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2153418,00.html
Sounds like they are pretty serious about rebuilding tbh.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2153418,00.html
Sounds like they are pretty serious about rebuilding tbh.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 7,004
- Location
- Thessaloniki
ok combine the yesterday news with this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6958824.stm
domino effect remember? i say , and i am confident in it, that the US is a major threat to peace on this planet.
domino effect remember? i say , and i am confident in it, that the US is a major threat to peace on this planet.
- Joined
- 31 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 5,172
- Location
- Barrow-In-Furness
Amp34 said:
There will be more than 6 lol, not sure where you've got that from. These new subs and destroyers are without a doubt better.
- Joined
- 31 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 5,172
- Location
- Barrow-In-Furness
Murf said:
I don't know where you're getting the number 6 from at all, it's wrong.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 1,595
- Joined
- 31 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 5,172
- Location
- Barrow-In-Furness
In every post i've said Submarines AND Destroyers...
nevermind.
nevermind.
Wardie said:
Admittedly I was a bit ambiguous with the above statement, there will be 6 T45's replacing the 12 T43 destroyers (started off at 12, then cut to 8, althought there is still a slight possibility of that many being produced in the end).
Sub wise I don't really know how many of the Astute class are being built, probably 6 I think, and they will be gradually replacing the older H/K subs aready in service, so there won't be any gain, but probably a net loss. The UK government is not increasing the size and strenght of the navy, they are trying to fix the figures by saying newer ships are equivilent to a certain number of older ones. Yes the newer ships are more powerful but it doesn't make up for the fact there are half the number of platforms floating around the sea. The government in it's wisdom has more or less mothballed half the fleet (including a lot of ships with a lot of life left in them), in return for only 2 Aircraft carriers (originally 3).
Just seen a concept russian unmaned bomber codenamed skat hehe
Wonder if it will ever get made.
http://news.ntv.ru/115567/
Wonder if it will ever get made.
http://news.ntv.ru/115567/
Looks fake to me, I doubt it could support the weight of the munitions layed out infront of it, if that's what they are...
Looks like a film prop, design inspired by the US stealth aircraft and UAV's, propaganda most likely. You usually see test shots of these things in flight not just the aircraft (or model).
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 1,509
- Location
- Behind you!
I swear that country's cursed. Maybe it's because it's so big and never developed a federal government like America. China seems to be doing fairly well, but we've yet to see how a population of 2 or so billion people react to totalitarian rule in the long term.
Sad really, they were on the right track for a while there... now we're nearly back to Stalinism. Least he's not started slaughtering Jews yet, not far to go though
Don't think theres much to be done about it. M.A.D keeps us safe from a "hot" war but I don't really want another cold war either. It's pretty much up to the russians to sort their government out.... or for George Bush to soak up all the russian nukes ^_^
Sad really, they were on the right track for a while there... now we're nearly back to Stalinism. Least he's not started slaughtering Jews yet, not far to go though
Don't think theres much to be done about it. M.A.D keeps us safe from a "hot" war but I don't really want another cold war either. It's pretty much up to the russians to sort their government out.... or for George Bush to soak up all the russian nukes ^_^
Last edited: