Duru1: It is an intellectual dishonest to quote from nytimes which was against the USA military involvement in Vietnam. Political liberals in USA were one reasons among reasons behind the USA military fiasco in Vietnam.
What led to the political liberals stance regarding Vietnam at the first place? Success or failure? The NYT you should know, is 110% more pro-government when dealing with external crisis. The fact that it stated the truth regarding the senseless war, you mean to say, doesn't qualifies it as a source of reference? But when the same paper supports the US blieskrig in Ukraine or US policies against Russia vis-a-vis US double standards relating to ISIS in Iraq and in Syria, it becomes an " intellectual honesty " to cite them as reference, huh? One way traffic reference - is that how we should embark on citing references?.
mazeltov: Appleyard , the only valid point you made in your post is the motive behind United states invasion of Vietnam.
Nixon sought to deflate the antiwar movement by appealing to a “silent majority” of Americans who he believed supported the war effort. In an attempt to limit the volume of American casualties, he announced a program of withdrawing troops, increasing aerial and artillery bombardment and giving South Vietnamese control over ground operations. In addition to this policy, which he called “ Vietnamization,” Nixon continued public peace talks in Paris, adding higher-level secret talks conducted by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger beginning in the spring of 1968. The North Vietnamese continued to insist on complete U.S. withdrawal as a condition of peace, however, and the next few years would bring even more carnage, including the horrifying revelation that U.S. soldiers had massacred more than 400 unarmed civilians in the village of My Lai in March 1968. Anti-war protests continued to build as the conflict wore on. In 1968 and 1969, there were hundreds of anti-war marches and gatherings throughout the country. On November 15, 1969, the largest anti-war protest in American history took place in Washington, D.C., as over 250,000 Americans gathered peacefully, calling for withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam. The anti- war movement, which was particularly strong on college campuses, divided Americans bitterly. For some young people, the war symbolized a form of unchecked authority they had come to resent. For other Americans, opposing the government was considered unpatriotic and treasonous. As the first U.S. troops were withdrawn, those who remained became increasingly angry and frustrated, exacerbating problems with morale and leadership. Tens of thousands of soldiers received dishonorable discharges for desertion, and about 500,000 American men from 1965-73 became “draft dodgers,” with many fleeing to Canada to evade conscription. Nixon ended draft calls in 1972, and instituted an all-volunteer army the following year. In 1970, a joint U.S-South Vietnamese operation invaded Cambodia, hoping to wipe out DRV supply bases there. The South Vietnamese then led their own invasion of Laos, which was pushed back by North Vietnam. The invasion of these countries, in violation of international law, sparked a new wave of protests on college campuses across America, including two at Kent State in Ohio and Jackson State in Mississippi during which National Guardsmen and police killed a total of six student protesters. By the end of June 1972, however, after another failed offensive into South Vietnam, Hanoi was finally willing to compromise. Kissinger and North Vietnamese representatives drafted a peace agreement by early fall, but leaders in Saigon rejected it, and in December Nixon authorized a number of bombing raids against targets in Hanoi and Haiphong. Known as the Christmas Bombings, the raids drew international condemnation. with this little analysis, I believe you must learnt why Us goverment withdrew its troops. America didn't withdraw its troops because they lost - No America didn't lose - but because the war has divided many people at home. The war was lost at home 'America' not on the battle field. The battle lacked major support • What constitutes "winning"? It’s not as easy to answer this question as one might think. Lance Janda, a professor of history at Cameron University in Lawton, Okla., said that "our strategy in Vietnam did not revolve around taking and holding terrain. In fact, we often captured and then abandoned key positions over and over again, and measured our progress in the war through a body count." By that measure, Janda added, "it’s certainly true that we consistently inflicted far greater casualties on the Viet Cong and North Vietnam than we suffered, and if that’s the only gauge one uses to measure ‘victory,’ then we really did win in Vietnam." On the other hand, he said, "if you argue that the North Vietnamese learned how to fight us in the early major battles of the war and then developed superior tactical and strategic plans for prolonging and ultimately winning the war, then you can plausibly make the case that they were winning a lot of battles from the beginning, regardless of the body count."
I like the way you wriggle your way out of glaring facts. Nobody disputed the fact that the NVA lost four times more men than the South and Anti-communists forces loss, not to mention that a whole lot of these were women and children and unresisting villagers that got massacred by US forces using chemical substances. But the question still hangs: was US obejectives regarding Vietnam realized or not? Was the objective is " go and kill much of Vietnamese or Vietcong, " or to ensure that communist tendency does not have roots by solidifying the position of Saigon against Hanoi (the North), and to ensure democracy and so so on? if the answer is no (which is the reality), how then does " successful bombing campaign " becomes victory when the primary objectives were not realized at the end? Is like a man led ten policemen into a kidnappers den with the sole aim of rescuing his wife. On getting there, he offered a ransom sum of 1million, but the kidnappers became furious that the money offered falls short of the expected 10 million. Argument ensued, one thing led to another, the hidden policemen fired, and a gun duel followed. When calm later set in, the kidnappers lost ten of theor men, but were gone. The man returned home wounded, with 3 policemen dead, ransom money gone and wife still intact with the kidnappers. Shall we say the mission was a success or a failure, especially when the primary objective remains untenable? Where would common sense have travelled to if an apologist comes hollaring that the man's adventure was a success?
Cc: Shymm3x, Nairaminted, we want to know if common sense is sitting next door to Mourhino on Chelsea's next flight to the sacking Arena.
Shymm3x: By mere reading this thread and judging by what everyone posited - you'd know those who have either been in the military, are military/war enthusiasts, have families in the military, read global military journals and briefings extensively, and/or watched different documentaries of different wars with perspectives from both sides. And only Rotimi47 and mach7 made sense in their posts. A lot of these other kids who can barely spell and constructing intelligible sentences is a myth to think war is just about propaganda and exhibition. Thank God those at pentagon aren't suicidal cos every time Russia dares them, they always fall back cos they know what is at stake. Posturing is all good and fun, but a shooting match is a different ball game entirely.
The world just need to keep praying against any miscalculations that might lead to an all out war between superpowers cos it will be devastating for both sides and that is when you will know that most of these flamboyant hardware are just toys. Those of us who like the US just don't want to see it in ruins but the country needs to fall back after decades of creating utter chaos and killing tens of millions of folks everywhere. And if the re-emergence of Russia and arrival of China would make that happen, so be it. Russia has always been the country where civilisations are buried - you can ask the ghost of Napoleon. Just leave the bear alone. Even at its weakest state during Yeltsin's era - it was a very dangerous country. Now imagine what it is now with the lightening speed in which Putin is modernising everything.
When it comes to pilots and armoured brigades who can get the best out of their hardware - the Russians are masters. The Cubans they trained in tank warfare would outwit the yanks in tank battle - go check what they did to the Israelis. Personally, I won't even go as far as comparing the untested F-22 raptors and its oxygen problems with SU-35/MiG-35...even the SU-30M should outflank it in a duel, that's if oxygen problem doesn't kill whoever is the F-22. As for F-35, that is just a colossal waste of billions, hence all the countries involved are pulling out one after the other. 5th gen fighter jets are a waste, regardless, hence every country (not just the US) has moved to 6th gen fighter jets - including: Sweden, France, Germany, South Korea, Japan, and the UK (that is the reason why the UK is phasing out the Tornados in 2018 or so).
Regarding bombers, they're only as good as the fighter jets protecting them - they can't win in air superiority. And I don't know how any of the US bombers would even get to the Russia airspace, to be honest. The US still can't find answers to s300 - and Russia is about to phase that out for the more mobile and effective vityaz. The s500 is also coming and there's Pantsir-S1 which most analysts believe is the best on the planet. I honestly don't know how any country can overcome a very complex multiply layers of air defence like that with a bomber.
The US definitely has its capabilities and advantages but in a proper shooting match - both countries would be utterly destroyed. But the bear can withstand utter destruction like they did against the Nazis...can the same be said about the US? Don't underestimate the bear - just leave it alone cos it will fight to the last man when push comes to shove.
Rotimi47: let state that Ak74 is better than American M4/M16 riffles that jam in the thick of battle; the only advantage the M16 have is range - M16 range is 650 mtrs while Russian very reliable Ak74 range is 600mtrs. You spoke about attack helicopters but you tend not to know about Russian Kamov Ka-50 which is superior to any attack helicopter the united States have in its inventory, forget all these western propagandas.
Let talk about naval assets; American aircraft carriers cost billions but it takes just one Russian made anti ship missile called Brahamos to sink each one of them! I hope you can remember what just took place in Syria? The United States navy can only fire cruise missiles from very large warships and the best of their cruise missile range is just 250km while the Russians showed the world by firing their own cruise missiles from ships that are almost the size of a frigate and the cruise missiles range is 1,500km.
The united States & the west have brainwashed lots of people with their propagandas but in reality its a different ball game; let take about tanks, The United States main battle tank is M1 - Abraham tank which is inferior to Russian T90 tank not to talk about Russia's new thank that will start rolling in; its called ( Armanda ).
The Russians have a tank like flame thrower that its rocket projectile is equivalent to a nuclear bomb and what makes it more deadly is that it is very accurate.
Further more, a Mi24 is a multipurpose helicopter that takes up the role of an attack helicopter and a lifter( personnel carrier ), it can also lift tanks etc. Let me say that the United States know that there is an imbalance in military capabilities between them and Russia and they are trying to reduce them, that's why America keep trying to put anti missile defenses in between them and Russia because they know that only Russia can take them out but they try to hide the fact by saying that they are trying to counter Iran.
let me state that I don't see any need for Russia a country that can hit all American bases by the torch of a button to start opening bases all over the world like the united States.
Finally,the United States President Obama made a statement in the middle of the Ukrainian crisis; he said on CNN that no country in the world want to see actual combat between the United States and Russia.
I rest my case.
The sense that you have, i believe, is not in your head only, but deep in your mind, that is why you can effectively see beyond the haze of western media propaganda and hollywood zombiefication. Keep it up bro.
A lot of them don't know that over half of the US' military budget goes to the unnecessary bases that can easily be destroyed all over the world. And once you take that away compare the product cost of US hardware vis-a-vis Russian hardware - both countries spend almost the same amount on military budget.
Also, for all those bases - Russia has more than enough capabilities to destroy all of them, including the scrap metals a la aircraft carriers within 24 hours, without leaving Russia. Hence they invest a lot in ICBMs and medium range missiles. And in a war between the two - whoever wins continental Europe and Euroasia, should have the upper hand. A lot of these folks are just ignorant and there's no point wasting time on them.
I see you know a lot about military. Have you seen the Russian TOS-1 flame thrower? Darn!! That's one bad arse hardware. If Nigeria can lay hands on four of that - Boko Haram should be dead in a month.
mach7: My friend, check out what is called GLONASS. It is a platform that is equal to if not superior than GPS. Also, make a research on Russia, its size and signals/satellite infrastructure. By virtue of Russia's size, it is able to install satellite monitoring stations in Uzbekistan to cover the southern part of Asia & the indian ocean, on Kamchatka/Vladivostok to cover the pacific and in Murmansk/Belarus to Cover the Artic/Atlantic and Europe. Having several military bases all over the world is old fashioned and expensive, just a couple of airstrikes or cruise missile strikes and they are a pile of rubble. Pls research bro and don't gobble all that your western 'prof' tells you.
Missy89: There was no pitch battle in Vietnam just over 100 skirmishes and engagements. Name at least 20 that was lost by the US to support your lie
Stop all this skirmishes and engagement crap excuses. Let common sense play out reality here! Was there war in Vietnam? Yes! Did the US got involved? Big time, yes! Now, unto you and Mazeltov: what was the US objectives in entering the Vietnam war? How else do you determine success or measure achievements in relation to aims and objectives?
U.S. objectives and concept of operations [are] to prevent communist domination of South Vietnam; to create in that country a viable and increasingly democratic society, and to initiate, on an accelerated basis, a series of mutually supporting actions of a military, political, economic, psychological, and covert character designed to achieve this objective.
Questions; was the US able to achieve any of the above aims and objectives in Vietnam? Was it able to prevent Saigon's day of reckoning with Hanoi? so what do we call this: success or loss? Achievement or failure? Because the following facts beg for answers:
1. American soldiers served on active duty in the Vietnam War between 1964 and 1975 with 58,220 killed and 75,000 disabled. Over half the American soldiers killed were under 21 years.
2. 5 men in Vietnam who were killed were only 16 year of age.
3. The oldest man killed in Vietnam was 62 years old. As of January 2004, even till date, over 1875-2500 Americans are still unaccounted for in Vietnam.
4. Total tonnage of US bombs dropped in Vietnam far exceeded the ones dropped in Italy, Germany and in Japan, in world war 2.
5. The war cost over 140 billion Dollars (even as at that time)
6. With no victory in sight, by 1 April 1973, U.S. forces were out of Vietnam (except for a few embassy guards and attaches) and 587 POWs had returned home (about 2,500 other Americans remained missing in action).
7. Because of the war, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in November 1973. It limited presidential power to deploy U.S. forces in hostile action without congressional approval. Nixon characterized the Paris Peace Agreements of 1973 as "peace with honor," but primarily they allowed the U.S. military to leave Vietnam without resolving the issue of the country's political future - the main reason why they went there at the first place.
8. Without U.S. air and ground support, South Vietnam's military defenses steadily deteriorated. In the spring of 1975, an NVA thrust into the Central Highlands turned into an ARVN rout.
9. On 30 April, as NVA and Vietcong soldiers entered the city, the last remaining Americans abandoned the U.S. embassy in Saigon in a dramatic rooftop evacuation by helicopters.
10. The war ended in victory to North Vietnam taking over and ruling the whole nation, even as it is to this day. And not a single jot of the aforementioned US objectives was realized regarding Vietnam.
Now back to the question: was the vietnam mission a failure or success? In the light of the above naked truth, can it be justified as " mission accomplished" or "mission failed", @Missy89 and co?
Even common sense and Most scholars conclude that the Vietnam War was a tragic event whose costs far exceeded any benefits for the United States of Awarnation, except the concepts of aims & objectives have lost it's true meaning in relation to achievement and success.
Missy89: Underground, Where do we draw the line between free speech and inappropriate and offensive speeches? . It is a grey area with valid arguments on both sides.
What sort of valid argument can one humanely associate with free speech that doesn't have respect for the dead? Just wondering.
speedyGonzales: hahaha! US withdrew from the battle because of protests at home against the war! and the is the famous photo of the little Vietnam girl naked and crying that shocked the american public and led to calls to withdraw from the war! but whatever floats your boat man, anything you want to say to justify your point I guess!
hahahahaha. You guys could be funny at times. So, US left Vietnam because because of public outcry over one picture of a naked girl? Well, if that is your theory, its alright. But be it known to you that the primary reason why US left Vietnam was due to public outcry, and the primary reason why the public cried out was because America fought a senseless war where alot of their sons over 50 thousand died. That is why the likes of Mohamed Ali and many others refused to be drafted for vietnam. Till date, the families of the dead still go to the wall every year to lay wreights before the names marked on the wall. That is why the US currently prefers contract soldiers like black water in some of their operations-reasons-Vietnam memories still haunts.
What do you think about ISIS claiming the Russian plane crash?
In as much as I think it has CIA/MOSSAD written all over but this might be beginning of the end of Saudi Arabia and Russia will definitely strike back. I guess that is why they are not saying anything.
Dear sir, i think its too early to jump to conclusions. I support Egypt denouncing the IS Claim on the ground that they do not possess the capability to hit th plane at such high altitude, but the possibility that the plane may have been downed by an external force, is very high, given the distance covered by the wreckage on the ground. Now that IS is out of the question (except the job was done from the inside,) the question now hangs, who did it? This is where, i dare say, your suspicion is well founded. The only culpable culprits therefore are Russia's sworn enemies particularly as it relate to Syria, and the commander in-chief is the United state of Anarchy in bed with Satan-Arabia. This might just be the much anticipated false flag cum reprisal attack against Russia, but then we may just have to wait for the conclusion of ungoin investigation. However, one thing is certain: if this was an attack, Moscow will strike back, and woe betide Riyadd if her hands are stained, not after offering cheap gas to Poland to undermine Russia. If you have anyone in the MidEast, tell him to leave now, that place is waiting to explode.
speedyGonzales: US didn't lose the war on the battlefield man, the lost the war at home, because the American public became against the war and asked the US Govt. to withdraw from the war. And Vietnam also had home advantage, were US soldiers had to adapt to...
US lost the war big time on the battle field, and the public back home rose against it because body bags of over 50 thousands were returned home for burial.
speedyGonzales: Money doesn't win wars? that is quite a dumb thing to say, especially for none conventional wars... I think you need the research man!
"To wage war, you need first of all money; second, you need money, and third, you also need money" — Prince Montecuccoli
“History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.” — Ronald Reagan
To '' wage '' war you need money, but to '' WIN '' war is not by MONEY. The US was and still is 50 times richer than Vietnam, but they could not win the Vietnam war. Rather, they lost embarrasingly. The formal Soviet Union was far richer and stronger than Afghanistan, but their wealth couldn't help them in the face of defeat. My brother, there are lots of factors that determine who wins a war, especially one on a larger scale, and money is the least of them all. Talk about, to an extent, weather, strategy, allies, then will power/collectivism, and of course, the greatest of them all, '' the cosmic orderliness of events. '' If the second to the last is absent, and the last determinant is against you, you will never win anything, even if you can print money like the federal reserve.
If you think that Vlad is joking about his Syrian incursion you better think again. One thing is very evidential - America ain't do shit, all they could do is just put up a show in order to save face (like sending 50 special forces to Syria). Putin means business and the guys at pentagon (including John McCain) understand that. Putin is a very clear headed guy, who thinks thoroughly before embarking on any action. I've taken out time to study about the guy and I will tell you that he has always been a winner. He knows how to get whatever thing he wants. Russia under Putin is not the same as Russia under Yeltsin, and this is the mistake a lot of people make. So as for Syria it is a closed matter.
Look at the Volta face America has been doing since. Initially they objected against Iran being pert of the political process to bring about stability in Syria, now they've accepted Irans place, Russia got all her recommendations approved in the Vienna agreement. I've always admired Putin and I'm very confident the guy will win. Syria will remain the off the hook of the global hegemon, and hey they better watch it lest Putin comes for their very heads!
I must agree with you. Even Russia under Yeltsin was still a force to reckon with, let alone the one under Putin. The man is a born strategist, one who perfectly fit the Kenny Rogers eulogy of '' the gambler ''- a man that knows when to hold them cards, when to fold them, and when to run. For those who think the man will get bogged down in Syria, disappointment will surely be their mirror.
mazeltov: [b]Yes of course, this is not new, in fact this is not news!!! The General was absolutely right and so on point, we all know what Russia is capable of doing. Russia is the only country on earth that poses a military threat to America existence and America also poses a Military threat to Russia existence; Russai can destroy America and America can do the same thing to Russia, but the question is, what does Russia tend to lose ? They say: ''Never fight with an idiot else, he would drag you down and beat you with experience. That is the logic.!!
One thing we refuse to understand is that, America is facing two side war. #1 Military war, #2 Economic war. As America is facing Military war with Russia, so also it is facing Economic war with China. China is a threat to America economic dominance and Russia is also a threat to America military domince which means, America is fighting double battles. But if Russia goes into a full-scale conventional war with America, America will lose a lot, few people understand what I'm saying. For example, If Russia loses N1,000 in war, America will lose N10,000. If you think Russia ''gragra'' in Ukraine and Syria means military supremacy over America, then you have to wake up. If Iraq/Afghanistan war could incapacitate American's economy, how much more is Russia. Untill when Russian economy is a large/sophisticated as American's own and untill when China military is as big/sophisticated as American's own, America won't think of fighting any of them. Don't fight with who has little or nothing to lose. Yes Russia is a threat to America existence and America is also a threat to Russia existence. Final!!![/b]
For the greater part of your time here, you make alot of sense. Ride on.
speedyGonzales: Fact man, America is richer than Russia... and spends more money on building military defence than any other country on earth! it is hard to admit but Russian military is just not as strong as America's... the only thing the have on their side is Nuclear weapons, but so does India and Pakistan.
A fight between Russia and the US will come down to who has more money to sustain their troops longer in battle... clearly America!
Man, go and do more research on wars. Money don't win wars, and try to understand that military spendings doesn't dictate capabilities. Come to think of it: no war between Russia and the US will ever CONVENTIONAL, if you are expecting that, then i must say you are still living in illusion.
CSTR2: This is no news. The russsian nuclear capability is frightening, same for America. The US is ofcourse scared of a nuclear war with Russia, it doesn't mean they can't obliterate Russia in return. America has much more to lose than backward Russia.
Russia is backward because you watch too much of Hollywitch movies..
CSTR2: If Russia is a motherland, then what is America that houses over 50,000 Nigerian immigrants, and a significant percentage of its black American populace are of Igbo heritage.
Then that should make the US a " fatherland", but sadly one that specializes in racial profiling in criminal prosecution and judicial activities, and systematic elimination of the same black race you are talking about. That is the difference. While Russia may have a significant populace that is racial towards blacks, it's government and foreign policies is in the opposite. But while the US may have a populace more tolerant than those of Russia, it's government and foreign policy is in the contrary. I have not seen Russian police shooting unarmed black people indiscriminately, naked their girls in public, nor have i seen their government denying a nation affected with ebola the trial vaccine needed for the treatment, nor have i seen them bombong from one nation to the other, causing troubles and sponsoring terrorist over the globe. This is why we call it " mother Russia ". -standing up against global terrorism and the hegemonic quest of the satanic elites.
babaireti: By Polina Tikhonova on November 3, 2015 in Politics, Russia
Russia is the only country in the world with the nuclear capability to destroy the U.S., according to Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley. The General called Russia an existential threat to the U.S., speaking in front of the audience at the Defense One summit in Washington, DC on Monday. Russia General Mark Milley Image Source: Wikimedia Commons
Milley also considers Russia “aggressive” and “adversarial to the interests of the United States,” which is why Moscow’s nuclear weapons are capable of destroying the U.S.
The General warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent behavior suggest the country would be willing to use nuclear weapons. Milley also noted that Russia has been violating “the Westphalian order” ever since it started invading “sovereign nations” in 2008.
Milley has already called Russia an existential threat during his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate back in July. Two weeks prior to his confirmation hearing, U.S. General James Dunford used the same phrasing during his own Senate confirmation hearing to become the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Who doesn't know that Russia can destroy the continental US in 30 minutes? So you know and still chose to antagonize a sleeping Bear? It shows your madness knew no bounds. Just tell us you want to get more spendings for the defence budget that will ultimately satisfy the Military Industrial Complex driving America into senseless wars.
“I would say that Russia’s recent behavior is adversarial to the interests of the United States,” Milley said, referring to Russia’s aggressive drills and patrols with its troops, aircraft and submarines for the past “four-five-six-seven” years. “Russia bears close watching,” he added.
While diplomacy is very “nuanced,” Russia must be fought with sanctions and NATO’s confident stance, he noted. However, the General added that the U.S. must cooperate with Russia on matters that require involvement of both Washington and Moscow.
Since you have the license from Satan to kill at will and destroy nations at your chosen, nobody should dare fight back? So you expect the Bear not to wake up and keep " close washing " when you are expanding close to its borderline, unilaterally withdraws from the ABM treaty, increasingly moving your troops to Europe, sponsored coup and installed Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, while you have bulging eyes and long-throat salivating with greed and covetous tendency towards Siberia...nobody should take you serious? You even refered to Georgia where your puppet government under Saakashvili was killing people at will, but you can go about bombing nations like Iraq under false pretext. Your madness is even more complicated in the sense that on the one hand, you want to maintain cooperations with a nation while still maintaining sanctions on the other hand.
Russia’s military far more advanced than that of U.S. – American analyst
Russia is far more advanced and superior in terms of military technologies than the U.S., while the recent American missile tests were nothing but a “bluff” to trick people into thinking the U.S. military could easily counter even such a nuclear-powerful adversary as Russia, according to an American counter-terrorism analyst.
Scott Bennett, a former U.S. Army psychological warfare officer, said in an interview with Press TV on Monday that this is something Washington typically does: it tells its military brass to show off in front of its Russian counterparts, claiming that American missile technology is “the absolute end-all technology that can determine any war.”
The analyst’s comments come just a day after the U.S. military carried out a $230 million test involving Lockheed Martin’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems and the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) equipped onto the USS John Paul Jones destroyer.
The results of the test showed that the missile systems were capable of successfully hitting their targets in all but one of the tests. The tests with the missile systems involved a medium-range ballistic missile fired from C-17 aircraft.
During one of the tests, a SM-3 missile fired from the warship failed mid-air in its flight and missed the target. But the THAAD system was capable of taking the failed shot out.
“From a psychological warfare perspective, I see this as a massive bluff, as just a lot of feather puffing, and [it] really doesn’t have a lot of substance because the technology is not there and the Russian technology as we know is far superior,” Bennett said.
Bennett sees this elaborate $230 million missile test as a standard military test, while Washington wants to make it look as if it is more lethal than it really is. U.S. will be responsible for deaths in Syria, not Russia – Analyst
The analyst also believes that the test is an attempt of the U.S. to assure its allies in the Middle East, who turn away from Washington one by one because of its incompetence in Syria, that the U.S. still has what it takes to maintain influence in the region.[/quote]I believe this wasn't me nor Nairaminted, nor Shymm3x talking. This is one of their own, one who have served in the game before - Bernett - now telling you the whole Aegis show was a bluff and just a show - that Russia's technology in this area is far superior Na me talk am? Well, that should be food for thought for those still living in self confinement of denial on the other side. Truely, the Yankees have been known for hype when it comes down to such level, not that their weapons aren't formidable, but the way they will put it to you would make you feel that is the end of it. The truth is, when it comes to rocket technology, the Soviets have always been king, the US is still learninjg how to fix the screws. Maybe in other areas of technology, you can give them the thump up, but when it comes down to missiles and EW, the Russians rules the streets!
As regarding the downed airbus plane, i don't think there is any connection there. We just have to wait for the analysis from the fleight recorder and the of the impact on the debris, then we can say what.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is discussing the possibility to station more of its ships and naval objects in Europe as a response to Russia’s most threatening naval operations in two decades, according to the new U.S. Navy chief of naval operations.
The U.S. Navy is now reassessing its global stance to counter the aggressive activity of Russian warships and submarines, Admiral John Richardson, chief of naval operations said in an interview with the Financial Times.
“Their submarine force and their navy are as active as they have been in a long time, 20 years or so,” Admiral Richardson noted. “How are we going to posture our forces to make sure that we maintain the appropriate balance and are suitably engaged?”
The Admiral also said that the U.S. Navy is considering to step up its presence in Europe and the Pacific. “That’s the conversation we’re having right now.”
Russian Admiral Viktor Chirkov, the chief of the Russian navy, recently said that Russian submarine patrols have increased by 50 percent from 2013.
Galadima Muhamadu Putin, see what your God-sent adventure to Syria and your 26 cruise missiles show from the Caspian sea has caused? :DNow this hawks of Pentagon are in panick mode while inadventently admiting their handicapness as it relate to Russia, they are virtually saying, ' we need more money to step up our presence in Europe and beyond,' despite having up to 800 bases world wide, arm with a $500 billion dollar military budget, plus a mouth-gaping military assets at their disposals, these guys still feels they are not " protected from Russia ". I pity the innocent US tax payer. As more and more military assets are deployed and stationed overseas, more and more billions are needed to keep them in shape, which ultimately means more economic catastrophy is lurking behind close doors (maybe somebody can tell me what infrastructural and capital economic projects that was realized from the over 18 trillion Dollar debt the US owes, other than the maximum satisfaction of the elites greed through wars). The United States is simply but slowly taking the path of the formal Soviet Union; and each time i come accross people saying the debt own by the US is own to itself, i just can't help but laugh. Its like saying Tkester is owing himself money he borrowed from himself. What a babel!
You just Have to feel sorry for the Hegemon. It has now resorted to full blown derogatory propaganda coated in lies, trying to make another look like itself. The man can't even comprehend one fact from another. Now that it's plans for Syria has been doomed, with so much money wasted, and no possible returns in sight for the time being, the only thing it can do now is to resort to lies and character assaination - if Russian missiles are not fallen in Iran, then she is only using dumb bombs that are killing only civilians, that a Russian plane got shot down by small Turkey, and now, its the hospital. Maybe the US like to have a brother-in-arms that specialize in bombing hospitals like in Kunduz, and other civilian infrastructures like we saw in Iraq where US and British air forces were directly shooting women and children in villages (thanks to Julius Assange's wiki leaks). Honestly, i don't see why we should be moved anymore by such silly propaganda from the west regarding Russia in Syria, since they can do no sh1t about the Bear, painting a bad image of its efforts is the only thing they can do for now, apart from arming the terrorist so-called moderate rebels. The major thing i think we should be wary of here is the possibility of a heavy " false flag, " probably one greater than 9/11 and the Syrian Gas false flag. This is realy the danger here, not some ediot in the State Department who can't corroborate one evidence with a simple fact.
scully95: On point.. You said it all.. In-fact I can't add or subtract anything. The bad-news is NATO can only bully unarmed small countries but when it comes to Russia, it beliefs total encirclement will win any war with Russia. They forget United west have tried Russia 3 times and they lost the war.
Russia coming back this time means one thing. The end of uni-polar world which I support 110%. (Because total power corrupts totally, there should always be a Balance of power..I also support its war in Syria. It's time Russia answer the western Colour revolutions and put a full stop to the Neocons hegemony.
Now we have new players like African Development Bank, BRICS, AIIB and SCO. These are the next frontiers we are looking forward to and the neocons/the AngloZIonist Empire are all out to sabotage it.
It will be all time war. I hope not
Spot on, brother. The Bear has reemerge from decades of self restraint. The hegemon have to be stopped by all means necessarily. NATO knows it's limit, it can successfully bully nations like Kosovo and Afghan that couldn't fight back, but when the Bear is concerned, all they can do is sabre-rattling while Putin does the talking. The new emerging financial bodies you mentioned above, pose significant threat to the US dominated financial world. US fleet carriers converging in the South China sea, does not have anything to do with China building artificial Islands here and there. Infact, they don't care if China sand-fill the whole sea: it has more to do with the Dollar than what people are being told. The rate at which China is dropping it's shares of US treasuries is systematically alarming, and she has to be brought back to the table. With the Syrian plan now doom to failure, the Hegemon may just go beserk, even as China is threatening serious repercussions over the South China sea.
Gentlemen, war storms are gathering in the Horizon.
scully95: The use of reason and common sense is out of the matter. Try to apply reasoning and common sense.. First of all interviewing anyone in front of media or camera is old propaganda method and any media using it in complex issues like this to back up a theory is just ridiculing itself and the media it represent in the 2015.Yes this is from the father of Propaganda BBC while CNN, FOX, CNBC,ABC are just sons of Propaganda and Ajezera(Qatari media), Times of anything starting from New york times, Moscow times are Great grand child of Propaganda.. Also voice of anything... By the way who is still watching CNN in the 21st century ? But sad it still works on some zombies like you may be..
[b]2nd on line is where is the black box [/b]and common sense will not tell you why is the Western part hiding it in UK since the Novorossians (New Russians) handed it over to them.. Answer this question. If you don't answer it then you are just a stupid pro anglozionist empire. You are more or less like them. I got a good news for you. Wake up from your slumber.. They are living in the past and with the latest Russian jamming capabilities,cruise missiles hat travels 1500km (I am sure you will think 4 really fell in iran..Physiological warfare for the zombies like you) it shows Russia is living in the future..
Wake up from fake life, Syria just liberated 8 villages in the past two days.. The game is over in Syria and we are back to Vietnam war. Wake up from your slumber again pls..
As for the Sanctions.. you are obviousely living in the past, I have friends that lives in Russia. Russia recovered from it pretty fast and even stop the idea of its economy heavily dependent on Oil price. If you don't know Washington already exhausted its card. You said it yourself, right wing in Germany wants the sanctions removed.. It should be the Russians but not Germans but common sense again will not apply here..
Russia careless because the Sanctions is hurting the EU more.. Again another thing you don't know about Russia is. You have probably never lived in Russia. Russian Language is my 5th language by the way. Russia will never start anything.. It does not start a war but always end it. History has been on Russia side always.. Until the cold war. Russia has recovered from the cold war. And now the world is a multi-polar world.
And history has it that the united west fought and lost 3 wars in the past with Russia.. NATO is indifference here.. Forget it, the AngloZionist empire and its permanent puppets and temporary puppets and potential puppets(You fall here) are living in the past.
Lol.. The U.S has Russia caged and Russia intervened in Syria Are you drinking Gbana ??
let me explain again.. Ukraine was used to try to keep Russia caged (So as not to intervene in Syria) like you said but see how Russia reacted to it with diplomacy. The isolation failed. Again smartest diplomatic president on earth is Putin.. How many people died during the referendum in Crimea and go back to History of Crimea (I have been to the Crimean peninsular before)it's strictly Russians. The ottoman Empire(Turks) formed a collation with France and Britain and tried to take it from Russia.. About 150K Russians died defending it.. Crimea was taken back from the United west... Again Nazi tried but what ?? It failed....
Even as we speak Kiev speaks only Russian language. It's only few states in the west that speaks Ukrainian. Lviv, Ternopil and some others.. Which I have also lived before.. So you are talking to someone that's been there before not some dummy telling you lies in CNN.
So get ready and wake up. Most importantly.. Stop watching CNN.. Use reasoning and common sense next time..
Again Russia has a final answer to Colour revolutions (Don't forget Soviet Union used the same Revolution in past).. But RUssia does not need the old game since it can now send power from Caspian sea to the middle east if need be and also Washington or pentagon if it ever tried to attack first.. see topo M missiles..
What is the point of encirclement by NATO.. Russia finally got answer to it. Another NATO country and you see Ukraine repeat itself over and over again.. We saw it in Georgia and now Ukraine... This is more or less a buffer zone.. Smartest foreign Policy..
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.. ride on man.
ValerianSteel: Let me put it this way,ISIS is busy killing hundreds of innocent souls,would you feel pity if an air strike from Russian jets hits an ISIS location killing the wives and children of ISIS fighters in their hundreds.
I'm sure a human part of you would feel they are innocent or their husband and fathers crimes but another human part of you will tell you it serves them right because they feel the pain families of those killed in cold blood go through everyday.Someone has to pay for the sins of Russia against MH17,and Karma had its way.
Yes maybe am inhuman right now,a part of me actually doesn't wish it was innocent souls,if justice is trampled upon,nature would play its role cause if you were in the shoes of families of MH17,you'd say otherwise.
And this is the more reason why you were so inhuman back there, trying to justify a silly motive based on a sensseless fact that has not even been deterrmine at the first place. So you were there when Russia shot down MH17, that you can rightly label them as being responsible, even when everyone knew that was a false flag that completely went of the mark. Let me tell you: when incident like this happens next time, try to be human and reason like one. Your IS hypothesis lacks merit as it relate to the Airbus crash. Honestly, i just can't believe you could stoop so low to exhibit such inhuman character, just because you hate a particular nation. Its just like wishing the US an " ill wind " when 9/11 struck and killed many of it's citizens; if someone should say " good for you " because of it's murderous military adventurism world wide, does it make any sense? That was what you did. Oh man, you don't have an excuse, just don't do such thing next time. Is bad!
ValerianSteel: ISIS doesn't possess the type of SAM that can take down the plane at the altitude it was flying.They are in possession of man portable air defense system(MANPAD) which again couldn't have taken it down.
Even if it's an attack by ISIS,serves Russia right.Now they feel the pain the Dutch felt when they shot down MH17.The flight was fully Russian board except for the three Ukrainians on board.
In all May their souls be remembered in good.
May God have mercy on your soul. So, you can be this inhuman, just because you felt Russia shot down MH17, something even the Dutch Safety Board report did not even mention in their findings?
Russia's capability in EW/ELINT is something that one can not keep track of. I have lost count of some of their wicked array of jammers. To say Russia is living in the future may be an understatement. There are reports of ungoing plans to go full-cyber. That is, the ability to wage war in any part of the world from the comfort of your borders and without much deployment to the target area. EW is a major key component of this new breed of warfare, one which is gradually becomming a reality. Now when it comes to this area of warfare, the Russians are like professors in the game. Georgia felt the massive impact of Russian EW in the 2008 war, and presently in the Ukrain, i always laugh when ever i hear people saying the US is training and teaching the Ukrainian soldiers on how to fight and tactics. But in reality, it is the US army that is actually learning and understanding the capability and how Russian EW system works, the extent and damage, etc. This they are learning from the Ukrainians who have confessed they can not withstand Russia's EW capability, and even the US General, Hogson, have admitted that the Russians are a force to beat in this area. Now in Syria, Russia EW systems is on display already and NATO is not hiding its respect for it either.
So, you can rightly say, the Russians are living in the Future where gigantic fleet carriers and other such large equipments would just be sitting-dock for the enemy in the face of such wicked array of EW and fifth generational missiles.
At OP, i donn't think You have to explain anything. Russian capability in missiles and jamming devices are not something you should argue about. Anybody who does is still living in self denial.
Lucasbalo: You are absolutely right Appleyard. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still having a rippling effect on America . Imagine thousands of young Americans dead and tens of thousands maimed and psychological maimed for life. Military Industrial Complex as you rightly pointed out is the main deal behind the eagerness for all the unnecessary wars. Most Americans are not into war unless America is under attack or about to be attacked. For all I care, Middle East can turn to ashes because the people in that part of the world will always hate each other. I almost lost two nephews of mine in the war and that's why it became personal to me. The main reason Obama beat McCain in 2008 was because Americans were tired of the war that almost bankrupt the country. Towards the end of George W presidency, America was losing 700.000 jobs a month and big corporations like Lehman Bros, AIG, H/P were about to fold up and Dow Jones was 7.000. The investment firm I work for almost fold up too and Americans were scared to death. McCain lost in a landslide to a Freshman Senator from Illinos. Now every Economic indexes are back to normal. Dow Jones is almost 18.000 points and the unemployment rate is down to 5.2%. There are presidential primaries going on now and the candidates like Ted Cruz and others salivating for war are not going anywhere. Left to me and millions of America Peaceniks, Putin and Russia can have Syria and all Middle East to himself. He would find out that war ain't cheap. Spending five to seven billions dollars weekly for war will bankrupt any nation talk less of Russian Economy that's hailing. I have always believed that McCain and his war mongering ilks are not good for America. He's in his 80s and how long this he have on earth ?. As long as America stays out of unnecessary and unwinnable wars, America will be fine. Down with Military Industrial Complex. They worry not about human lives, they only worry about making money.
..and you are right also. The blood thirsty elites are the real problem. Thank God the economic situation have change for good, like you said. But we must also pray that God should not allow those warmongering ediots to find their way back into the White House, becos most of what we have as aspirants right now, are nothing but offshoots of MCcain.
sweetgala: It is a money pit which is responsible for making a few aero-space companies go almost burst, it was first initiated in the early 90s the guy who designed the best ground attack plane described it as cant turn, can't climb and can't beat opposition in a dog-fight, limited pay-load, cost too much to fly, limited flying time for the pilots, spends too much time on the ground for a turn-around.
It is just a bad bad plane, also cost the Canadian PM his job and almost cost the Australian PM, the Swedish party in government hate the thing now i'd say
Thanks alot for this info. People like you are needed to help in the war of truth against lies and satanic propaganda. So, it even went as far as costing someone his hard earned job, where as they keep telling us it is the best plane, bla bla bla I have said before now that some of American weapons of war or technological capability in warfare, are mostly held to be the best or the absolute based on HYPE and pure propaganda, not that they are not good or very formidable; but the way they will present it to you would make you feel that there is nothing like it, or its absolutely the only thing you can't get else where.
The thing that makes me wonder often times, is the seneseless huge amount of money spent on defence budget. Who are they defending against that warant such ridiculous spendings? Who wants to attack America that such amount of money must be expended at the expence of the American tax payer? The thing doesn't make sense to me, except that it is needed to serve as a means to an end - the end being the quest for global hegemony by the elites. That is why you see over 600 bases world wide. Now you have a plane that cost so much in both purchase and maintenance, yet, it can hardly win serious dogfights, can't fly much, spend alot of time nosing on the ground, and all that. The only capability now appears to be it stealthiness, While your health care continue to deteriorate, been rated below Morroco and Slovenia, with Bridges collapsing from old age, and over 50 millions of your people living marginally around the poverty red line. But you can spend so much on a plane that is proving to be a nuisance. Even the F35 that was cleared for official use some few months back, is back again for it's bulk of problems - the latest being it can snap the neck of it's pilot while ejecting. Na wow o!
sweetgala: Really, there is a certain opinion by un-informed people in general even in US and Europe that western equipment are best, but I'm into my military equipment and subscribe to a few military journals, Russian Kit is seriously dangerous and ahead of western equipment which are often too complex and expensive to maintain.
What is the purpose of an F22 raptor which spends over 72 hrs on the ground after a sortie mission, the Us consequently has to have so many F22 and F35 to be able to maintain operational readiness, at over $150 million / bird that is extremely expensive when this same jet can be outflown, in a dog-fight and plucked out of the air by a Su-20MKM which would land on a crusty run-way refuel and be back up in the air in less than 2 hours.
In a world-war the american economy would be crippled by the cost to operate their equipment, If the Nigerian Army were serious they would buy into the joint Russia/China/Pakistan venture to build good quality, 4++ and 5th/6th generation fighter jets, we can learn how to build with a competent well experienced partner who are not looking to exploit us needlessly.
We can also buy YAK 130 rather than those shitty alpha jets
I just learned something new. So the much hype F22 raptor have to spend 72 hours on the ground before it can airborne again after refueling? The cost of maintainance alone is something else, now this! See as American tax payers money just dey waste for nothing.
Missy89: If we are using specs to determine a weapons effectiveness. Why are we here arguing about what is what in the first place.
I dont have time digging through your post but if you never said that before then my bad. That said, I dont have anything against Russia. There is a conventional line of thought among anti-american folks. They believe you have to support Russia and China if you are against the US. And banksters control US but not the Russia and China. That will be the greatest lie ever told. Banksters are everywhere lol. Russia is still very reliant on commodities, Where do you think the prices are set?. The banksters had Russia by the balls after the October revolution.
How do you think China was able to develop at a rapid pace in the first place? Go and read about the 8 immortals and their princelings of China or the collusion between the Soviet Union and the West and how the Soviets were able to MIRV during the early days of the nuclear race and how the Soviet union was propped up by the West before it collapsed.
I was talking about money to build tanks not the fighting in Syria
There are limits to how far any country can go when it comes to spending money on a war abroad. The US that is way richer nearly went bankrupt fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Same thing happened to the soviets in Afghanistan, the difference is, Putin has learned from history and he is transferring the financial burden on Russians by cutting pensions, health and education costs and devaluation (risky but worth it) unlike the Soviet leadership that kept living in denial until it was too late.
That said, Building a tank that will replace a whole or half of the current MBT deployed is another thing. And Yes!, There is no money to do it at this point. That is why they are considering T14 exports since more orders will reduce the unit costs eventually. The story is the same with the PAK FA by developing a variant with India since it will have the same airframe.
There is nothing like unrepentant trolling here.If i got something 10 yrs ago and you just have it today is that not playing catch up?
@ the bolded
Russia is spending about $4 million a day in Syria that is peanuts if you compare it to Russia's defense budget. technically, with the size and level of operation that is within what will be classified under a military exercise budget. So it is not a testimony to any effect. Besides, Russia is already staving herself to maintain and update her deterrence ( nuclear weapons )
The reason i like rolling with you is that you do call a spade a spade when it matters so, although you surprise me at times with your sense of inclinations regarding certain issues.
Yes, bankers are everywhere, and all wars appears to be bankers wars. But we can agree that the degree at which these banksters activities prevails in the US via the war machine, is far above what entails in other places like Russia and China, otherwise, i don't see any other reason why the US should be $18trillion Dollars in debt. What were the money mostly used for? Nothing but wars upon wars.
Your statement that anti-American folks are incline to support China along with Russia when dealing with America, is valid, but not in the way it appears to mean. Many supports Russia and China together against America, not out of necessity, but simply out of reality. It is no secret that the US sees Russia as the greatest threat to it's security, while China's contineous rise in military capability is view as a big worry and a major threat in Washington circles. They both have a common enemy, and even as we speak, US war ships are dangerously roaming the South China sea. See why people will support the two? America causing problems and increasing tentions here and there, and we all are fed up with it.
Hoestly, i just don't have the time to analyse how China rose to prominence economically. This also should help.
Unrepented trollers are everywhere, sputing garbages without second thought. I even met one recently telling me if it was to be a republican like Bush that is in the White House, the US would have invaded Russia by now. When i ask him what makes him feel so, guess what he said, " that Russia don't have the capability to shoot helicpters, let alone US fighter jets That is a troller for you
Playing catch up: how many capability does US have 10-20 years before the Soviets got to know about it? You can help a brother out here. And maybe there are some little ones the Soviets know before the US came to know of it, and one of it is the recent capability that you can manned and lunch cruise missiles from smaller ships. I believe that is a capability too.
What makes you think if Russia can be spending over $4million Dollars a day in Syria, can lunch cruise missiles that is very costly, it can't afford the purchase of Tanks? The fact that Russia is facing some degree of financial constraint doesn't imply it can't fund ordinary tank purchase if it actually wants to. It all winds down to strategic necessity for the time being. There are other more pressing matters that demands urgent attention than purchase of tanks, no matter how advance. this is the difference between Russia's and American policy makers and risk assessors. While the formal would curtail itself to meet immediate and vital needs, the latter goes plunging in debts spending unnecessarily.
The Syrian mission is a clear indication that Russia can deploy far from home at such remarkable speed and efficiency, a clear contradiction of the myopic line of thought down in the west. And Missy, all these takes money that is far more costly than some battalion of tanks, not to mention now that Iraq is reported to have given Russia the green light to commence air strikes in Iraq. The question still hangs: where is a suppose broke Russia getting the money from?
Politics › Re: Russia Can Destroy Us – Top U.S. Army General by Appleyard(m): 12:15pm On Nov 07, 2015
Are you drinking Gbana ??