Who has the stronger land forces, US or Russia?

[IglooDame]

They had to go back to port to fix it (this wasn't the first time that this type of thing happened.) They were suppose to start the 6 months out to sea on or near January but since it would not submerge they had to go to port and fix it.

And fix it they did, apparently.

That one of the navies newest subs. If that can not submerge that much what makes you guys think the older subs can do better?

Ummm because I've participated in exercises with them, and been onboard them while they submerged?

USS Cheyenne is the newest Los Angeles class attack sub. I've been on/exercised with at least three other LA boats, and they were definitely submerged. Perhaps you should aim for a little perspective, that some problem you heard about with a single submarine that made it non-diveworthy is considerably different than a fleet of submarines that have systemic maintenance and reliability problems. The US hasn't lost a submarine since 1968, the Russians have lost three since then and had numerous other problems.

BTW truth >>>>>>>> leaking classified info

Sure, but anecdotes =/= truth.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Beside, the radioactive cloud stopped at the French boundaries

The radioactive cloud and the roquefort cheese cloud were insoluble.

 

[BaneBlade]

And fix it they did, apparently.



Ummm because I've participated in exercises with them, and been onboard them while they submerged?

USS Cheyenne is the newest Los Angeles class attack sub. I've been on/exercised with at least three other LA boats, and they were definitely submerged. Perhaps you should aim for a little perspective, that some problem you heard about with a single submarine that made it non-diveworthy is considerably different than a fleet of submarines that have systemic maintenance and reliability problems. The US hasn't lost a submarine since 1968, the Russians have lost three since then and had numerous other problems.



Sure, but anecdotes =/= truth.

This could have been staged. You actually went outside to check it?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This could have been staged. You actually went outside to check it?

You have to put a smiley on a post like that, otherwise people might not know that you're joking.

 

[The Yankee]

Can we get back to "land forces"? I could use a good round of USA #1 (as is obviously the case).

USA #1! Woo!

One could never invade and occupy the other, but on some hypothetical battle, without big advantages in the Russians' favor, the USA takes it.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Nuclear weapons don't produce this stuff (and if they do, they produce it in very small amounts).

One of the main subproducts of fission bombs is precisely 129-Iodine one of the longest lived radioisotopes, with an average life of 15.7 millions years. It is also very mobile and most of the Iodine-129 found in the whole world comes from weapon atmospherical tests.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

The question is meaningless without context. You need to provide a scenario. For example, could the United States successfully invade Russia? The answer would be no, not by a long shot. Russia would handily win a defensive war. Vice versa is true as well, Russian forces, aside from strategic nuclear elements, are completely impotent if it comes to striking at America itself.

 

[Jawz II]

This is easy: China.

 

[jprc]

None.
Both would use nuclear weapons: if one launches, the other one will do the same, and there are still enough left for destroying every one down here.
No one is stronger.
all are loosers.

 

[brennan]

What a cheerful thought

 

[jprc]

I know...
living always in countries pre or post war, I am tired of all warmongers.
I saw too many people dying in very front of my eyes for thinking about any "win" when a war starts...
winning is keeping peace, not going at war...

 

[Ecofarm]

You are ignoring the possible purposes of war. If you were horribly enslaved by tyrant (let's say: court ordered gang rapes, government sanctioned rape by officials, the slaughtering of a couple hundred thousand people by chemical weapons, a complete lack of the freedom of religion and speech, and relatives being "disapeared" on a regular basis...

and another country offered to come to your aid and liberate the country, would it still be a loss?

Also, was WWII a loss? Would it have been a "win" if everyone just accepted what Hitler wanted to do and went along with it?

You do realize that war can be necessary and just, right?

 

[BaneBlade]

You have to put a smiley on a post like that, otherwise people might not know that you're joking.

WTF? Maybe I should make me a signature that says: I'm no mainstream- leftist-do-gooder-conspiracy-nut, i actually have a brain.
So i save the time for putting all the smilies in.

 

[jprc]

(...)
You do realize that war can be necessary and just, right?

speechless.
Diplomacy annihilated.

(and no, I am not a young idealistic person, but a 49 years old senior anti-corruption officer, former senior Nato officer, former senior commander of a UN peacekeeping force.)

 

[BaneBlade]

speechless.

So what when your neighbour is invading you to get all your fancy ressources?
Of course you could say this is an defeat, diplomacy failed and innocent people on all sides will die.
But isn't this completly irrelevant and the task at hand is defeating the agressor?

 

[jprc]

So what when your neighbour is invading you to get all your fancy ressources?
Of course you could say this is an defeat, diplomacy failed and innocent people on all sides will die.
But isn't this completly irrelevant and the task at hand is defeating the agressor?

Which is exactly the point.

"war can be necessary..."
when it is inevitable, of course. As it can not be avoided because you are already at a state of war, it is better not to say "perhaps in, perhaps out" otherwise you loose before even trying to resist.
As, I think, you are North American, I take an example: Pearl Harbor. After the attack, it is rather evident than the U.S. were not going to say "ok, sorry for having disturbed you with our ships", and they/you had to fight back as diplomacy was killed.

"... and just": no war is just. Never. And never a superior officer from any country will say that a war is just, except if religious fanatism comes in... Only politicians will say this ... or Napoleon ("you need to speak to the soul ...")
I am in Irak, I hate my government, and you invade me. My war is just? According to what you say, yes. So now all acts of "terrorism" are actually acts of "resistance"...
I am a Cherokee, I am an Inca, I am any "native" ... the meaning of "just" can be used for justifying anything...

A war can NOT be necessary AND just. Because only 1 side decides what is just, and perhaps it is not the "good" side...

A war is an accident of diplomacy. As such, it is always a failure.

Now, we must keep in mind than "clean" and "classic" wars do not exist much. Battles and such are just 1% of the conflicts. Is the Rwanda or Cambodian genocide a war? Is Bosnia/Serbian/Kosovo a war? Tanks in Tchecoslovakia, Hamas / Palestinia ... etc
Since Asian wars (c.f. Viet Nam), it is a concept that is more in books than in modern reality...
It is mostly a mess, an horrible desorganized (no military formations) but coordinated mess where no one really know who is who, who started what and how and when to add the word "The End" on the film "war".

 

[Ecofarm]

A war can NOT be necessary AND just. Because only 1 side decides what is just, and perhaps it is not the "good" side...

A war is an accident of diplomacy. As such, it is a failure.

What about WWII. The US could have said "screw europe - let the Axis try to come here". We did NOT have to go to war. We do so anyway. Why? Because it was just.

 

[jprc]

I am sure US did not started ww2 in Europe because it was "just".

The Axis was threatening a too large part of the globe, and in short, the US had to enter the war sooner than they wanted, because of the pressure they had on their back.
They fought a war as far as possible of their border for not having to do a war too late (defending the borders). Which was really the best decision if you are american. However, at the time, many wondered why they came in so late...
Later came the excuse of helping out other countries, but it is only the classic political explanation...
The truth has nothing to do with "just" or "not just".
It is only a question of interests.
USA went to war for protecting their interests, and it is exactly what any other country do since the beginning of times. It is not about just or not, it is about being "just" in time for saving what can be saved, and protecting interests that are jeopardized.

 

[Ecofarm]

Fair enough.

and protecting interests that are jeopardized.

What US interest besides freedom was jeopardized? We certainly had enough resources at home. WW1 had pulled the US out of the depression, and raw materials were abundant. Trade was expensive because communications and shipping were not what they are today. Why did the US need Europe? It could certainly have business relations with the Nazis if it wanted to. So there was not even trade to be lost. We're the Nazis charging too much? Foreign tariffs?

Exactly what justified the expendature of millions of lives and dollars? I doubt it was trade.

The US could have defended its borders indefinately and/or opened business relations with the Nazis to make up for the loss in trade from Western Europe being in flames. Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack, not the breakdown of US defenses. Winston Churchill crossed the atlantic over Christmas to beg at our congress for help not because the US needed to go to war for its own good. We had Einstein and were completing the atomic bomb. We had no need to fear the Nazis. Why not just trade with them and stay out of war... would that be diplomatic success?

Norway did not enter the war. Sweden did not enter the war. And they are in Europe. What makes you think the US had to?

Maybe you are right. The US could have stayed out of the war and today, instead of suicide bombers, we would have lampshades. Diplomatic success.

There are things worth fighting for, and doing so is not a failure. Failing to fight for what you believe in, well, that is a failure. I will fight for freedom. I will go to war for it. Because I believe it is necessary and just.

 

[MobBoss]

"... and just": no war is just. Never. And never a superior officer from any country will say that a war is just, except if religious fanatism comes in... Only politicians will say this ... or Napoleon ("you need to speak to the soul ...")

I will simply disagree with your point. Speaking as a current member of the military, I do believe a war can be a just war. I happen to think an excellent example of a 'just' war is our involvement in WWII.

A war can NOT be necessary AND just.

Again, I disagree.

Because only 1 side decides what is just, and perhaps it is not the "good" side...

Simply because the conflict is seen as 'unjust' from ones perspective, doesnt mean it is anymore than its a 'just' war from a different viewpoint.

A war is an accident of diplomacy. As such, it is always a failure.

So you would have preferred the USA to be under British rule then? Happy with Hitler having control of all of Europe? And the Empire of Japan consisting of all the western Pacific?

I actually believe Clauswitz was right when he simply said "War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means."

If a coutry achieves its goals via war, then war in of itself, is not a failure at all.