 |
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001 time: 11:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yeah, and the Germans kinda won the final phase on THAT front.
They may have lost the war, but they whipped the Russians. |
When and how they WHIPPED the Russians?
We signed a peace treaty with them and lost Ukraine, but after short period of time we took it back. Is it called a victory on THAT front?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001 time: 11:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc
1) So they finally decided to improve the security of thier arsenal? Good.
2) A nuclear arsenal isn't a guarentee of superpower status. One need only look at France to learn as much.
3) Russia will only be a superpower again if it learns how to build subs that don't sink to the bottom of the sea. |
1)Agreed with Krayzeenbk.
2) Agreed with Krayzeenbk.
3) A couple of comments:
First of all, I think this statement is insult to honor of sailors who died on Kursk. Secondly, Russia is not a single country, which lost its submarines in peace times. As far as I know USA lost 3 of them in peace times.
Third few weeks ago we build another “Typhoon” class submarine. When your scientists will create something equal to our “Typhoon” class, please let me know.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Krayzeenbk
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc
In 1993, nuclear thefts in the Northern Fleet (a navy base) illuminated that criminals can neutralize alarm systems with wire cutters while "warehouse guards are quietly sleeping." (FBIS/ 9/04/97) Also in 1993, there were eleven attempted thefts of uranium, approximately 900 attemps at illegal entry of nuclear facilities, and roughly 700 instances where workers attempted to steal secret documents.(Allison, Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy) These examples convey a precedent and given the current situation within the military there is no reason to expect that these attemps would diminish.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~ghannum/rusnuke.html
Here's another source: http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/...adow/052002.htm |
So where was there even at attempt to steal a nuclear weapon?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Krayzeenbk
|
|
I'd like to point out that the average Russian criminal breaking into a fleet base would have no interest whatsoever in stealing a nuclear weapon... He can't use it, and if he were to sell it to somebody (as I've heard numerous Americans say), he would be VERY concerned that that somebody would then use it to blow him and his family up. Not very encouraging.
Find one instance of somebody stealing a large enough quantity, even a fraction of what's required, of weapons-grade material from a Russian site.
The average dude breaking into that base was probably looking for equipment, spare parts, or money.
Besides, looks like many were caught anyways - I really don't think anybody in Russia is about to allow unauthorized access to nuclear weapons, but everyone in America seems certain that they would.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001 time: 11:21
|
|
MOSCOW - Maxim Shingarkin wanted to prove a point about the security of Russia's vast network of aging and depressed nuclear facilities.
So one day in February, Shingarkin, an antinuclear campaigner for Greenpeace Russia, led a Russian legislator and a camera crew past unwitting guards, around fences, and into the heart of a supposedly high-security restricted area in Siberia where 3,000 tons of highly radioactive, spent nuclear fuel are stored.
An ANTINUCLEAR campaigner and a bunch of paparaci who hunt for cheap sensation (such as this entire article), will be the last people whose bs. Stories I will consider as true.
quote: Besides, looks like many were caught anyways - I really don't think anybody in Russia is about to allow unauthorized access to nuclear weapons, but everyone in America seems certain that they would. |
Exactly
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Krayzeenbk
|
|
DinoDoc is right to a certain extent, Serb. Security is definetely lax.
But not to the absurd extent many claim.
It's very far-fetched to say somebody is going to drive out of a Soviet nuclear facility with nuclear-armed SS-25 missiles.
All of this is beside the point, lax security doesn't prevent the Russian government from using these missiles.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:21
|
|
...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:21
|
|
Welcome to 3-digit world.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002 time: 23:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Verto
I thought the term "superpower" had been deemed obsolete when little renegade nations started developing nuclear arsenals...
Hey, wait! If the US loses its place as world superpower, does this mean people will stop trashing it? I wonder what everyone will do with all their free time THEN.... |
Tru dat.....
quote: But, sure I'm still absolutely sure that it's the best tank of the world. (Ok, at least M1A2 and T-80U share the first place) |
OK my friend, the T-80 is a formidable tank, but it is no where near the Abrahms. The T-80, if I remember correctly, still uses welded steel armor like he tanks of WWII. The M1, M1-A1 (Used in Gulf War), and M1-A2 Abrahms all have incredibly powerful composite armor that is all but indestructible(practically). The only thing so far in combat able to disable one of these tanks have been our depleted uranian 120mm sabot rounds fired from a friendly tank on accident.
Of the 17 nuclear subs lost in history, theUS has lost 3. Russia has lost 13 (or 11, dont remember exactly- but it is one of those 2 numbers)
Russias lax security is very scary. It is very concievable for a terrorist group to infiltrate these places as described - why wouldnt it be?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Krayzeenbk
|
|
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t80/
Don't underestimate any tank.
Welcome to the world of explosive reactive armor, Kramerman. EDIT: with the exception that the U.S. seems to have neglected to retrofit the Abrams with ERA, wtf.... I thought they carried ERA.
The Abrams tank uses very, very similar armor to that of the T-80, I don't know where you get your information from.
As for the subs, the Russian sub fleet is also bigger (at least according to my sources), but yeah they kinda lost too many 
Once a terrorist group gets in, what can it do? Blow up the place? That's not as much of a problem for America as it is for Russia.
Last edited by Krayzeenbk on 31-07-2002 at 01:47
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002 time: 23:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Krayzeenbk
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t80/
Don't underestimate any tank.
Welcome to the world of explosive reactive armor, Kramerman. EDIT: with the exception that the U.S. seems to have neglected to retrofit the Abrams with ERA, wtf.... I thought they carried ERA.
The Abrams tank uses very, very similar armor to that of the T-80, I don't know where you get your information from.
As for the subs, the Russian sub fleet is also bigger (at least according to my sources), but yeah they kinda lost too many 
Once a terrorist group gets in, what can it do? Blow up the place? That's not as much of a problem for America as it is for Russia. |
Sorry, i was thinking of the T-72 . But I just saw a History channel deal on main battle tanks, and it spoke of the US M1-A2 to be supperior the T-80, due to the better armor. And it did say T-80, not T-72. It said how T-80 armor was still vulnerable to shaped charge explosives, like what TOW and Hellfire missiles have, while the Abrhams composite armor is all but impervious to this.
THE RUSSIAN SUB FLEET WAS BIGGER. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, they have downsized dramatically, and the US has a bigger Sub fleet. And the US has always had a larger Surface Fleet, since WWii, since then having the largest in the world.
No. Your missing the point. Once a terrorist gets its hands on a nuke, it can transport them. That means this is a major problem for the US.
Kman
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Krayzeenbk
|
|
quote:
No. Your missing the point. Once a terrorist gets its hands on a nuke, it can transport them. That means this is a major problem for the US.
|
My thought was you might be able to walk past the guard on the way in, but you might not be able to drive back past him in a truck with a missile on its back
And if you did, then you'd be in the middle of Russia in a truck with a nuke on its back, with the Russian armed forces out to get you Not a very pleasant scenario for a terrorists hehe
As for the T-80 - you're probably right, but from what I gather, not much data is really available since it isn't very often that modern U.S. weapons get fired at modern Russian tanks and vice versa.
I just have the impression that reactive armor was designed specifically for the purpose of defense vs. shaped charges, and Russian tanks were retrofitted with ERA very early on. When a shell detonates an ERA patch, the explosive "penetrating force" of the charge is deflected away from the tank. The Abrams' approach to armor looks like just brute force dense material (depleted uranium), for the most part, which is good, but does nothing to deflect or mitigate the attack.
Depleted uranium - doesn't do anything special if you can find something just as or almost as dense to put into your shells.
A serious advantage of the M1 would be, for example, the nuclear/biological/chemical protection it offers... this is something that the Russians never had time to go back and put into their tank forces (although the T-90, which might eventually see service, has this feature).
Putin's sub policy - phase out the old subs very fast.
Phase in new subs (like the Kursk) slower.
In the end, however, Putin assured the military that the sub fleet was going to be increased in size.
Besides, it WAS bigger back when most of those subs sank.
As a side note, Russia had a pretty impressive crew survival rate for so many subs lost (in one sub, about half the crew got out, in another, almost the entire crew did, IIRC). Of course there was also the sub that plunged into the Pacific ocean, and the Kursk.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Serb
First of all, I think this statement is insult to honor of sailors who died on Kursk. | On this I agree 100%. Plus all of the other boats that were lost.
quote: Secondly, Russia is not a single country, which lost its submarines in peace times. As far as I know USA lost 3 of them in peace times. |
We lost 2. U.S.S Thresher SSN 593 and U.S.S Scorpion SSN 589
quote: Third few weeks ago we build another “Typhoon” class submarine. When your scientists will create something equal to our “Typhoon” class, please let me know. | We have the Ohio class, nothing else is needed.
A side note; It will be a real long time before the US falls. Why because most of the people born in the 30s, 40s, and 50 are still around and will be able to teach our grandchildren how to do things. They in turn will teach their grandchildren, so it is going to be a long time before we fall.
Now in 20 years China will be a problem, because she will think she strong enought to take on the US and just might try some thing stupid. But then all of the old guard will be dead and just maybe the younger generation of commie may think more like M. Gorbachev.
And never forget our production captacity if needed. Just go back to WW II and see how fast they did it and remember we can today out produce them by 10 to 1.
Last edited by on 31-07-2002 at 07:07
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001 time: 11:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kramerman
OK my friend, the T-80 is a formidable tank, but it is no where near the Abrahms. The T-80, if I remember correctly, still uses welded steel armor like he tanks of WWII. |
T-80 is a very old tank. I was talking about T-80U which is absolutely new tank.
Some info you could find here:
http://www.rbs.ru/vttv/99/firms/OZTM/e-t80u.htm
http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/MBT/t-80.html
quote: The M1, M1-A1 (Used in Gulf War), and M1-A2 Abrahms all have incredibly powerful composite armor that is all but indestructible(practically). The only thing so far in combat able to disable one of these tanks have been our depleted uranian 120mm sabot rounds fired from a friendly tank on accident. |
Yeah, Chobham armor is nice conventional armor, BUT it makes your tank MUCH heavier.
I recomend you to check those links. You my find there a very interesting information about unique features of Russian tanks, such as an active Protection System, ERA and jaming complexes:
http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/EQP/arena.html
http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/EQP/kontakt5.html
http://armor.vif2.ru/Tanks/EQP/shtora.html
quote: Of the 17 nuclear subs lost in history, theUS has lost 3. Russia has lost 13 (or 11, dont remember exactly- but it is one of those 2 numbers) |
I don't know, men. As far as I remember we've lost only FIVE subs.
Last edited by Serb on 31-07-2002 at 12:59
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|