Lawmakers Asking Whether Cyberattack Is Act of War

Seeing how they hacked our National Nuclear Security Administration I would say , yes.
 
 
Aireoth said:
You act like this is new, war always had consequences, only in hollywood land did they not.
Click to expand...
The last time US had war with a superpowers, a nuke was used.
Everything else since that time has been with third world countries.

Again, we are talking superpower war, ones with ICBM nukes. it's more than consequences, it's the grave.
Boy, I'm glad no one here is Joint Chief.
 
Last edited:
WorldExclusive said:
The last time US had war with a superpowers, a nuke was used.
Everything else since that time has been with third world countries.

Again, we are talking superpower war, ones with ICB nukes. it's more than consequences, it's the grave.
Boy, I'm glad no one here is Joint Chief.
Click to expand...
Nobody here is saying to use nukes, at least I hope not. It would be the end of humanity as we know it. 40% would die from the initial conflict, up to 90% more would die from the ensuing fallout , nuclear winter and famine. We'd have plenty of mushrooms to eat, although Im not keen on eating radioactive mushrooms.
 
Krenum said:
Nobody here is saying to use nukes, at least I hope not. It would be the end of humanity as we know it. 40% would die from the initial conflict, up to 90% more would die from the ensuing fallout , nuclear winter and famine. We'd have plenty of mushrooms to eat, although Im not keen on eating radioactive mushrooms.
Click to expand...
Just saying, they want to say a cyber attack is an act of war. China and US hack each other everyday.
So lawmakers want to go to war tomorrow?

Someone earlier said there shouldn't be a threshold, a hack is a hack it from a adversary and warrants a military response.
So US will strike China over malware? ICBMs will be headed our way.
 
WorldExclusive said:
Just saying, they want to say a cyber attack is an act of war. China and US hack each other everyday.
So lawmakers want to go to war tomorrow?
Click to expand...
I'm sure they do, politicians love war, especially when they all have skin in the military industrial complex. Its good money. Take the Huey from Vietnam and the M1 Abrams from the Gulf War for example.

Thing is, all that money isn't gonna do you a bit of good in a post apocalyptic wasteland.
 
GotNoRice said:
I mean, can you imagine how the Cold War with the Soviet Union might have been different if the Soviet Union literally had direct access to every home and business in America via something like the internet? It would have been unthinkable to allow a hostile country that kind of access - yet that is EXACTLY where we are today with China and to a lesser extent Russia, Iran, N Korea, Venezuela, etc; and when I say "lesser extent" I mean only because those countries themselves are less relevant (Russia has a smaller GDP than Canada now, and Canada has a smaller GDP than California).
Click to expand...
The damage the USSR had done to the USA during the Cold War by inflitrating academia, entertainment and various civil organizations, consequences of which are more apparent by the day, dwarfs whatever they could do over the Internet today.
 
Last edited:
GotNoRice said:
But that's part of the problem. You set a threshold on what is considered "war", then you effectively green-light anything less than that.

We need to break away from the idea that only conventional warfare constitutes war. Other countries fully understand the lack of will on our part to adequately respond to "small" or indirect attacks, and thus it's game on. In many 3rd world countries, hacking and extorting Americans over the internet is one of the biggest industries now. If we know where those facilities exist, they should be bombed, plain and simple. Right now we allow their activities to take place essentially unrestricted. We can't allow it. You see it in other ways also. For example, Iran would never attack us directly, so instead they fund 3rd party terrorist organizations who attack us on their behalf, knowing that we simply do not have the political will to retaliate against Iran due to an "indirect" attack. Just the same, we don't have the will to attack other countries in response to a cyber attack, and thus they currently have nothing to fear as they rake in the cash and stolen information.
Click to expand...

Which is why China set a zero tolerance policy, and has outright stated that ANY attributed nation-state cyber attack on them is an act of war, period.
 
WorldExclusive said:
The last time US had war with a superpowers, a nuke was used.
Everything else since that time has been with third world countries.

Again, we are talking superpower war, ones with ICBM nukes. it's more than consequences, it's the grave.
Boy, I'm glad no one here is Joint Chief.
Click to expand...

Again, the economic metrics have changed, but that does not exclude or end anything, it just changes the math. War has always been about economics.

You started with consequences, and then moved the goal post to armageddon. There is zero guarantee of armageddon, just a better likelihood than before. War has always has consequences, just because they change doesn't mean they were not there before.

The idiocy is some people actually believe war is over because we are living in a very peaceful period and the economics of war have changes. If we make it through this century without war, then its most likely over. A lot can be f'd up in that time span.
 
Krenum said:
Nobody here is saying to use nukes, at least I hope not. It would be the end of humanity as we know it. 40% would die from the initial conflict, up to 90% more would die from the ensuing fallout , nuclear winter and famine. We'd have plenty of mushrooms to eat, although Im not keen on eating radioactive mushrooms.
Click to expand...

The problem is you don't get out of WWIII without a nuke being deployed. I don't doubt for a second China or Russia would opt for mutual destruction over an outright defeat by the US, not at the government level at least. (Assuming the US could even get that far.)
 
Kardonxt said:
The problem is you don't get out of WWIII without a nuke being deployed. I don't doubt for a second China or Russia would opt for mutual destruction over an outright defeat by the US, not at the government level at least. (Assuming the US could even get that far.)
Click to expand...

Thats a lot of assumptions, historically the US has been closer to pushing the button than Russia.

To many variables to guarantee nuclear war. Certainly a possibility, especially if defeat looks to be a disaster, but a minor defeat or some kind of treaty/compromise is just as likely due to the downside of nuclear war.
 
IMO the use of nuclear weapons would only be applicable in the event of actual invasion where defeat would be obvious. MAD these days just means proxy wars would be won/lost as opposed to any sort of invasion.

We will never invade Russia or China. Or any country with a nuke for that matter. That’s why Iran wants one so bad.
 
next-Jin said:
IMO the use of nuclear weapons would only be applicable in the event of actual invasion where defeat would be obvious. MAD these days just means proxy wars would be won/lost as opposed to any sort of invasion.

We will never invade Russia or China. Or any country with a nuke for that matter. That’s why Iran wants one so bad.
Click to expand...
I could see a land invasion over AI, again the metric changes, AI would potentially be so powerful that those without it would potentially risk everything.

Not sure what else would qualify, maybe some rare earths and helium 3, things that are critical and about to run out. Say China had the last H3 and forbaid any use outside of the State, that could do it.
 
Delicieuxz said:
I was more referring to in-atmosphere missiles, including guided missiles like Russia's Zircon hypersonic cruise missile, rather than ICBMs.

Russia's in-atmosphere Kinzhal hypersonic ballistic missile has been in service since 2017. Russia's Avangard ICBM-launched hypersonic glider entered service December 2019. Both of those carry nuclear or other payloads. Russia's Zircon sea/land-based anti-ship hypersonic cruise-missile has been undergoing testing this year and could enter service soon.


The US state regards China as having missile supremacy over the US: Special Report: U.S. rearms to nullify China's missile supremacy


China also now has a larger navy than the US:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...etting-better-pentagon-warns/?sh=24c0789a7933
China’s vast fleet is tipping the balance in the Pacific
Type 56 Frigates. China is pumping them out like candy. via Chinese Military Review.
China has an advantage over the US Navy that could mean a 'decisive' defeat for US warships in a fight at sea
Click to expand...
Eh, satellite based optical targeting will be useless rather quickly as we blast every one of those down.

The problem is it’s easier to defend than attack, China and Russia both have defensive capabilities I don’t think we can penetrate. We are in agreement there. Their offensive capabilities though are lacking, since they don’t bomb other countries every few years like we do. I don’t think we are really disagreeing with each other.
 
Delicieuxz said:
I was more referring to in-atmosphere missiles, including guided missiles like Russia's Zircon hypersonic cruise missile, rather than ICBMs.

Russia's in-atmosphere Kinzhal hypersonic ballistic missile has been in service since 2017. Russia's Avangard ICBM-launched hypersonic glider entered service December 2019. Both of those carry nuclear or other payloads. Russia's Zircon sea/land-based anti-ship hypersonic cruise-missile has been undergoing testing this year and could enter service soon.


The US state regards China as having missile supremacy over the US: Special Report: U.S. rearms to nullify China's missile supremacy


China also now has a larger navy than the US:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...etting-better-pentagon-warns/?sh=24c0789a7933
China’s vast fleet is tipping the balance in the Pacific
Type 56 Frigates. China is pumping them out like candy. via Chinese Military Review.
China has an advantage over the US Navy that could mean a 'decisive' defeat for US warships in a fight at sea
Click to expand...

You really need to read stuff less BullSheiB. China may have a bunch of boats, and may have stolen a lot of US technology - but they are not yet even close to parity with the US Navy.
 
Cyber attacks are most certainly a act of war. Some people don't realize how depended we are on the internet. Cyber attacks can cripple the economy and people access to essential services.
 
From the U.S government point of view, why not? The U.S has gone to war for less. What is right or wrong hasn't been a factor in anything for a long time now, for there is much more at stake.
 
Imagine if the NSA wasn't actively backdooring the living shit out of every piece of equipment ever deployed...
 
Lawmakers can ask if it's an act of war all they want... But we've known for decades that going to open war vs RU or CN isn't a good idea - just as they don't want it with us.

Looks like a good old fashioned Cold War scuffle to me.

Perhaps some diplomats will be sent home in protest?
 
DarkSideA8 said:
You really need to read stuff less BullSheiB. China may have a bunch of boats, and may have stolen a lot of US technology - but they are not yet even close to parity with the US Navy.
Click to expand...
That all depends on what you define as parity. If you mean that China doesn't have the exact military that the US has, then no. And neither does the US have that kind of parity with China. If you mean superior capability in a given scenario, then China has surpassed the US in terms of missile reach and penetrability. And that can easily make all the difference in a conflict. The goal isn't to have the most ships of a certain tonnage, it's to have the advantage in a conflict. US carriers aren't of any use when they can't get within range to fire their armaments or launch aircraft without being sunk.
 
Trump has now confirmed that it isn't known who did the hack and that the media fixation on Russia is propaganda.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1340333618691002368

So, much of what I wrote in my comment is confirmed to apply to the widespread claims of the hack, assuming it happened, was in-fact by Russia:
Delicieuxz said:
Who is responsible for the attack is not known. Attributing any sophisticated hack, such as one done by a state, is strictly a guessing game. It's also a social engineering and propaganda opportunity, and so attacks are blamed on whoever it seems most opportunistic to point the finger at.

A hack can be made to appear as though it was done by anyone, and from anywhere. Hackers not only deliberately leave traces and signs to make their hacks appear as though it was done by whoever they want to take the blame, but they also collect each-others' hacking tools and use them to leave the digital fingerprints of whoever they want to be blamed for the hack. Hacks can also be executed from a computer which itself is controlled remotely from another country, and can be done by foreign agents who are in the target country or are temporarily in another country for the duration of the hack. And, in 2018, CIA documents were leaked which showed that when the CIA does a hack, they disguise it to appear as though it was done by Russia or China. Therefore, if a hack appears to have been done by Russia based on appearances, then the US state should be suspect.

So, if this hack appears to have been done by Russia, then it wasn't done by Russia. And the person reporting the story knows this. But they report it this way anyway to feed confirmation-bias and fuel prejudice and hysteria against Russia - because attributing a hack, both for US intel agencies and US media outlets, is regarded as a propaganda opportunity.
Click to expand...

Trump is by no means an honest person. But if it were another person in the president's office, they would likely do nothing to clarify this and would wilfully let the confirmation-bias and prejudice consume the public's reaction.
 
Last edited:
Delicieuxz said:
I guess that depends on how it's measured. But China's navy is continuing to grow at a rapid pace - and the frigates they're pumping-out appear to be larger than the US' Littorals.

But it's the greater range of China's arsenal that gives them the advantage. Having larger vessels with more firepower on them doesn't count for much when they can't get within range to be used without being sunk.
Click to expand...
Land based SSM's with no anti-ship capability mean nothing.
Most of China's missiles are designed to intimidate Taiwan, and have no worth in a Naval contest, what "Carrier Killers" China has have yet to hit an actual target that can defend itself.

As for the original thread, Russia is no where near China or the US in terms of military power, on paper those thousands of tanks and aircraft look Impressive but the vast majority are obsolete, with no money to maintain or replace. The signs are fairly obvious if you know what to look for, The T-14 Armata isn't being fielded, they have no stealth capacity to speak of, the Navy is being reduced to a coastal defense force, with very few ships capably of projecting power. Ships like the Kirov's are not being upgraded, the TU-22M fleet are aging rapidly, with only a small fraction of the original number being refurbed.

The Ukrainian fiasco is costing Putin dearly, along with Fracking killing the value of Russian oil and gas which is seriously affecting the ability of the Russian military to upgrade.

They still have nukes, which makes any real war against them unlikely in the extreme. the same rules apply now as they did during the cold war, as long as we have the capability to destroy each other.
 
Delicieuxz said:
Trump has now confirmed that it isn't known who did the hack and that the media fixation on Russia is propaganda.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1340333618691002368

So, much of what I wrote in my comment is confirmed to apply to the widespread claims of the hack, assuming it happened, was in-fact by Russia:


Trump is by no means an honest person. But if it were another person in the president's office, they would likely do nothing to clarify this and would wilfully let the confirmation-bias and prejudice consume the public's reaction.
Click to expand...

He "confirmed" nothing, and in fact suggested China might be responsible despite zero evidence.

You do know his modus operandi is to shift blame away from Russia no matter how responsible that country might be, right? And that his own Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, said Russia was "pretty clearly" involved? So, either Trump or Pompeo is lying... and the smarter money is on Trump lying. Especially when he tried to downplay the severity of the hacks despite his own officials being much more concerned.

Claiming another person would "willfully" let confirmation bias run rampant? That's purely speculative. It assumes there is inconclusive data (it's entirely possible this is false) and that this person would be malicious enough to stoke an unsubstantiated narrative. If anything, the concern should be that Trump might be covering for Russia and that a better President would be unambiguously pointing the finger at Cozy Bear and Putin.
 
Aurelius said:
He "confirmed" nothing, and in fact suggested China might be responsible despite zero evidence.
Click to expand...
He did confirm something - that it isn't certain who did the hack. His suggestion is not an assertion of who did the hack. It's a confirmation that who did it isn't known.

At the same time that you're claiming that Trump didn't confirm anything without evidence, you're arguing in defence of a claim by pathological-liar Mike "we lied, we cheated, we stole" Pompeo that has been given without any evidence. And "we lied, we cheated, we stole" Pompeo didn't even claim it's fully known that Russia was behind the hack, he claimed 'we can say pretty clearly' - which means he's venturing a conjecture, no matter how confident in it he is (but, as he's a pathological liar, it's safe to expect that he's just lying - especially given the challenges of hack-attribution I mentioned before).

So, your rebuttal is defeated by your own argument: No evidence means no confirmation. There is no evidence of who did the hack, and therefore, as I said, it isn't known who did the hack.

Aurelius said:
You do know his modus operandi is to shift blame away from Russia no matter how responsible that country might be, right? And that his own Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, said Russia was "pretty clearly" involved?
Click to expand...
You mean pathologically-lying Mike "we lied, we cheated, we stole" Pompeo? As dishonest as Trump is, Pompeo is even moreso. He publicly bragged about lying and having training-courses in the CIA to teach people to lie, cheat, and steal.

Aurelius said:
If anything, the concern should be that Trump might be covering for Russia and that a better President would be unambiguously pointing the finger at Cozy Bear and Putin.
Click to expand...
Such conspiracy theories have run their course and come-up empty, since Trump has been more hostile to Russia than Obama was. And if there was information to unambiguously point the finger, those with access to that information (and many would have access) would be doing it. Don't let confirmation-bias completely take-over your senses.
 
motomonkey said:
Land based SSM's with no anti-ship capability mean nothing.
Most of China's missiles are designed to intimidate Taiwan, and have no worth in a Naval contest, what "Carrier Killers" China has have yet to hit an actual target that can defend itself.
Click to expand...
China's missiles are land and sea-based, and have anti-ship capability.

https://www.businessinsider.com/chi...ecisive-in-battle-against-us-navy-2019-4?op=1
"China is arming its surface warships with supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles with far greater range than the Cold War-era subsonic missiles the US Navy has in its arsenal."

motomonkey said:
As for the original thread, Russia is no where near China or the US in terms of military power, on paper those thousands of tanks and aircraft look Impressive but the vast majority are obsolete, with no money to maintain or replace. The signs are fairly obvious if you know what to look for, The T-14 Armata isn't being fielded, they have no stealth capacity to speak of, the Navy is being reduced to a coastal defense force, with very few ships capably of projecting power. Ships like the Kirov's are not being upgraded, the TU-22M fleet are aging rapidly, with only a small fraction of the original number being refurbed.
Click to expand...
Russia's military doctrine is defensive. The US' is offensive. The US' power is largely neutralized by technology that Russia possesses and which the US doesn't - including various hypersonic missiles, anti-missile technology (Russia's best anti-guided-missile system, the S-400, is more than twice as capable in all metrics as the US' most-updated Patriot system), and stealth-detection.

The T-14A is entering service in 2021.

Russia's Su-57 has some limited stealth capability, but it isn't designed for the same applications as the US' F-35. This might relate to Russia's defence-based military doctrine. However, reportedly, stealth isn't so stealthy anymore - for Russia, anyway.

Putin claimed a year or so ago that Russia would be the first country to have anti-hypersonic-missile capability. And Russia's new S-500 system is reported to be able to track and down hypersonic missiles and all existing stealth craft. So, even if Russia isn't equipped to create a craft to rival the US F-35, it could be seen by Russia as a poor investment to do so anyway - as Russia might expect US and Chinese stealth-detection capability to close the gap before such a craft is ready.

Russia's nuclear arsenal is also more updated and advanced than the US'.

So, Russia has the most advanced missile, missile defence, nuclear, and radar technology in the world. They also have more advanced electronic warfare capability than the US', as another poster mentioned in this thread. And they'll have the most advanced tank, which won't be available in numbers for a while still.

motomonkey said:
The Ukrainian fiasco is costing Putin dearly, along with Fracking killing the value of Russian oil and gas which is seriously affecting the ability of the Russian military to upgrade.

They still have nukes, which makes any real war against them unlikely in the extreme. the same rules apply now as they did during the cold war, as long as we have the capability to destroy each other.
Click to expand...
Regarding "the Ukrainian fisco" (though, I would say the fiasco was the US-orchestrated coup that disintegrated Ukraine and left Crimea stateless, and not Crimea's accession to Russia, which was lawful), Russia's economy recovered from sanctions a while ago. And in response to them, Russia has restructured and diversified its economic partnerships to protect itself against future sanctions, which has reduced US influence over many countries. Various countries, including among the EU (which lost a lot more money than Russia did due to sanctions against Russia), have also taken measures to create financial systems that operate outside of US influence and so are immune to US dictates and shield trading from US sanctions, and so the sanctions against Russia have had a back-firing effect in the long-term and will permanently reduce US pressure and coercive influence in global economics.

Contrary to the impression given in US news, the large-majority of the world doesn't support the NATO position on the matter of Crimea. Since 2016, every UNGA resolution calling Crimea occupied failed to receive anywhere close to support from a majority of countries. As of December 2020, only 63 countries (out of 195 in the world), representing just 17% of the world's population, continue to back the NATO claim that Russia is occupying Crimea. As you might guess, those in-support of calling Crimea occupied are essentially NATO and its dependents. Here's the 2018 vote-map with pro-occupation voters in green. Even fewer countries are in-support of the NATO argument today.
 
Last edited:
The US is in no position to fight any mobilization of China within the SE Pacific at this point. They can range Guam without issue. Anything closer, like Kadena, etc. Are in even worse shape.

Any position the US had politically within that region was ruined under the Obama administration with the Scarborough Shoal incident. That made it obvious the US wasn't going to defend our allies in the region when it was actually needed. Now that China knows they can just take shit with zero consequences.. Deterrence has failed. Deterrence only works if you're willing to act when tested. This is basic human psychology.

As for China not having capability to strike CSG's floating in waters near them, all I have to say is LOL. I would NOT want to be a sailor stationed on a bo-at under 7th fleet if China commits.

I'll leave this article here - Brown: Change Now or Risk 'Losing a High-End Fight,' and 'Quality Airmen' - Air Force Magazine His comments don't apply to just the USAF, by the way. The entire DoD has been stuck in a Gulf War & COIN type of fight for decades now, and every service has had to shift to that fight. The level of preparedness to fight a high-end fight is not looking great right now.
 
Last edited:
Delicieuxz said:
He did confirm something - that it isn't certain who did the hack. His suggestion is not an assertion of who did the hack. It's a confirmation that who did it isn't known.

At the same time that you're claiming that Trump didn't confirm anything without evidence, you're arguing in defence of a claim by pathological-liar Mike "we lied, we cheated, we stole" Pompeo that has been given without any evidence. And "we lied, we cheated, we stole" Pompeo didn't even claim it's fully known that Russia was behind the hack, he claimed 'we can say pretty clearly' - which means he's venturing a conjecture, no matter how confident in it he is (but, as he's a pathological liar, it's safe to expect that he's just lying - especially given the challenges of hack-attribution I mentioned before).

So, your rebuttal is defeated by your own argument: No evidence means no confirmation. There is no evidence of who did the hack, and therefore, as I said, it isn't known who did the hack.


You mean pathologically-lying Mike "we lied, we cheated, we stole" Pompeo? As dishonest as Trump is, Pompeo is even moreso. He publicly bragged about lying and having training-courses in the CIA to teach people to lie, cheat, and steal.


Such conspiracy theories have run their course and come-up empty, since Trump has been more hostile to Russia than Obama was. And if there was information to unambiguously point the finger, those with access to that information (and many would have access) would be doing it. Don't let confirmation-bias completely take-over your senses.
Click to expand...
He still didn't confirm anything. It's odd — you know Trump is a chronic liar, especially when Russia is involved (see: bounties on US soldiers), yet you explicitly trust him here.

I won't delve further into who's been tougher on Russia (hint: you're not accurate), but I'd much rather trust reputable news outlets, Russia's historical cyberattack patterns and simple logic than a President who falsely claimed Russia had stopped cyberattacks by the 2018 midterms.
 
Aurelius said:
He still didn't confirm anything. It's odd — you know Trump is a chronic liar, especially when Russia is involved (see: bounties on US soldiers), yet you explicitly trust him here.

I won't delve further into who's been tougher on Russia (hint: you're not accurate), but I'd much rather trust reputable news outlets, Russia's historical cyberattack patterns and simple logic than a President who falsely claimed Russia had stopped cyberattacks by the 2018 midterms.
Click to expand...
The bounties on US soldiers story was false. It was known to be false before the NYT first reported it - which it why it was never reported to Trump. The DNI has confirmed that the claim was deemed to be non-credible, and the Taliban themselves mocked the claim by pointing-out that they never needed an incentive to kill US troops in Afghanistan (that's been their entire goal since the US invaded). The US military also says they haven't found any evidence supporting the claim.

The NYT also revised their original report, tucking the correction away on a back-page of a later newspaper, to say that the report was lacking evidence.

The NYT, which has been a tool of the CIA since the 1950s, knew the story was deemed non-credible at the time they published it. But they published it for the purpose of disrupting Trump's plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan - and they partly-succeeded (no doubt, the play was also organized with members of Congress beforehand). And, as always, to stoke anti-Russia sentiments.


You are also incorrect regarding who's been tougher on Russia. Trump has hit Russia with far more sanctions, has withdrawn from treaty after treaty with Russia, has hyper-aggressively attacked Russia's core economic interests like Nord Stream 2, and has authorized attacks on Russia's critical infrastructure.

"Russia's historical cyberattack patterns" - which your belief of is based in assumption and information confirmed to be false.
 
Last edited:
Delicieuxz said:
China's missiles are land and sea-based, and have anti-ship capability.



Russia's military doctrine is defensive. The US' is offensive. The US' power is largely neutralized by technology that Russia possesses and which the US doesn't - including various hypersonic missiles, anti-missile technology (Russia's best anti-guided-missile system, the S-400, is more than twice as capable in all metrics as the US' most-updated Patriot system), and stealth-detection.

The T-14A is entering service in 2021.

Russia's Su-57 has some limited stealth capability, but it isn't designed for the same applications as the US' F-35. This might relate to Russia's defence-based military doctrine. However, reportedly, stealth isn't so stealthy anymore - for Russia, anyway.

Putin claimed a year or so ago that Russia would be the first country to have anti-hypersonic-missile capability. And Russia's new S-500 system is reported to be able to track and down hypersonic missiles and all existing stealth craft. So, even if Russia isn't equipped to create a craft to rival the US F-35, it could be seen by Russia as a poor investment to do so anyway - as Russia might expect US and Chinese stealth-detection capability to close the gap before such a craft is ready.

Russia's nuclear arsenal is also more updated and advanced than the US'.

So, Russia has the most advanced missile, missile defence, nuclear, and radar technology in the world. They also have more advanced electronic warfare capability than the US', as another poster mentioned in this thread. And they'll have the most advanced tank, which won't be available in numbers for a while still.


Regarding "the Ukrainian fisco" (though, I would say the fiasco was the US-orchestrated coup that disintegrated Ukraine and left Crimea stateless, and not Crimea's accession to Russia, which was lawful), Russia's economy recovered from sanctions a while ago. And in response to them, Russia has restructured and diversified its economic partnerships to protect itself against future sanctions, which has reduced US influence over many countries. Various countries, including among the EU (which lost a lot more money than Russia did due to sanctions against Russia), have also taken measures to create financial systems that operate outside of US influence and so are immune to US dictates and shield trading from US sanctions, and so the sanctions against Russia have had a back-firing effect in the long-term and will permanently reduce US pressure and coercive influence in global economics.

Contrary to the impression given in US news, the large-majority of the world doesn't support the NATO position on the matter of Crimea. Since 2016, every UNGA resolution calling Crimea occupied failed to receive anywhere close to support from a majority of countries. As of December 2020, only 63 countries (out of 195 in the world), representing just 17% of the world's population, continue to back the NATO claim that Russia is occupying Crimea. As you might guess, those in-support of calling Crimea occupied are essentially NATO and its dependents. Here's the 2018 vote-map with pro-occupation voters in green. Even fewer countries are in-support of the NATO argument today.
Click to expand...
China's Sea launched missiles are typical of modern anti-ship missiles, descended from Russian designs, nothing new there, only new missiles with a potential to be a new threat to a carrier task group are the DF-21, which remains unproven but are of concern.

As for Russia, don't you find it odd that the S-400 has been in Syria for years, and has yet to be actually used? Israel has been flying F-35's in the theater for years, and not a single one has been shot down. none of the missiles fired at Syria by Israel have been engaged by the S-400, almost as if Russia is afraid it might not work as advertised, just the like massive failure of the Pantsir S1, lots of bad press on that. The S-400 has NO combat record, no demonstrated Anti-hypersonic capability and is a wonderful weapon only on paper, like many Russian weapons systems, the S-500 is in the same class.

The T-14 is capped at 100 units for now, that's not even enough for a single armored brigade! And the SU-57 is a joke, with no deployed squadrons. As for nukes, so what, as long as they go boom, or might, doesn't really matter does it? no one can stop a determined nuclear attack by ICBM's and SLBM's anyway, ours work just fine.

Your claims as to Russian actions and it's results, in the Ukraine is frankly, ludicrous. Russian efforts to distract and obfuscate the world from it's invasion of it's neighbors are pitiful, as fake youtube videos demonstrate very well.

Just stop posting bullshit claims that have no basis in reality.
 
motomonkey said:
China's Sea launched missiles are typical of modern anti-ship missiles, descended from Russian designs, nothing new there, only new missiles with a potential to be a new threat to a carrier task group are the DF-21, which remains unproven but are of concern.

As for Russia, don't you find it odd that the S-400 has been in Syria for years, and has yet to be actually used? Israel has been flying F-35's in the theater for years, and not a single one has been shot down. none of the missiles fired at Syria by Israel have been engaged by the S-400, almost as if Russia is afraid it might not work as advertised, just the like massive failure of the Pantsir S1, lots of bad press on that. The S-400 has NO combat record, no demonstrated Anti-hypersonic capability and is a wonderful weapon only on paper, like many Russian weapons systems, the S-500 is in the same class.

The T-14 is capped at 100 units for now, that's not even enough for a single armored brigade! And the SU-57 is a joke, with no deployed squadrons. As for nukes, so what, as long as they go boom, or might, doesn't really matter does it? no one can stop a determined nuclear attack by ICBM's and SLBM's anyway, ours work just fine.

Your claims as to Russian actions and it's results, in the Ukraine is frankly, ludicrous. Russian efforts to distract and obfuscate the world from it's invasion of it's neighbors are pitiful, as fake youtube videos demonstrate very well.

Just stop posting bullshit claims that have no basis in reality.
Click to expand...
Didn't they sell s400 to saudi arabia? If it was that good, no way would they sell it, essentially, directly to the USA.
 
Delicieuxz said:
Russia's military doctrine is defensive. The US' is offensive. The US' power is largely neutralized by technology that Russia possesses and which the US doesn't - including various hypersonic missiles, anti-missile technology (Russia's best anti-guided-missile system is more than twice as capable in all metrics as the US'), and stealth-detection.

The T-14A is entering service in 2021.

Russia's Su-57 has some limited stealth capability, but it isn't designed for the same applications as the US' F-35. This might relate to Russia's defence-based military doctrine. However, reportedly, stealth isn't so stealthy anymore - for Russia, anyway.

Putin claimed a year or so ago that Russia would be the first country to have anti-hypersonic-missile capability. And Russia's new S-500 system is reported to be able to track and down hypersonic missiles and all existing stealth craft.

Russia's nuclear arsenal is also more updated and advanced than the US'.


So, Russia has the most advanced missile, missile defence, nuclear, and radar technology in the world. They also have more advanced electronic warfare capability than the US', as another poster mentioned in this thread. And they'll have the most advanced tank, which won't be available in numbers for a while still.
Click to expand...

I remember reading Russia has those things on paper but real property is a very different story.
 
Verge said:
Didn't they sell s400 to saudi arabia? If it was that good, no way would they sell it, essentially, directly to the USA.
Click to expand...
Turkey, actually. it's one of the reasons we kicked Turkey from the F-35 program, having F-35's at close range to a Russian air defense system able to be accessed by Russian technicians that can analyze the aircraft for ways to defeat it's stealth capabilities was a VERY bad idea.

Saudi Arabia has been using Patriot for a long time, with good results vs Iranian supplied SCUD copies that keep getting fired at Saudi Arabia from Yemen.
 
motomonkey said:
China's Sea launched missiles are typical of modern anti-ship missiles, descended from Russian designs, nothing new there, only new missiles with a potential to be a new threat to a carrier task group are the DF-21, which remains unproven but are of concern.
Click to expand...
Previously, you incorrectly claimed that China didn't even have any sea-launched SSMs. Now after being shown that they do, you're arguing that they're nothing special. But they have much greater range than the US', so there's that. It kinda seems like you're just moving on from one made-up argument to the next.

motomonkey said:
As for Russia, don't you find it odd that the S-400 has been in Syria for years, and has yet to be actually used? Israel has been flying F-35's in the theater for years, and not a single one has been shot down. none of the missiles fired at Syria by Israel have been engaged by the S-400, almost as if Russia is afraid it might not work as advertised, just the like massive failure of the Pantsir S1, lots of bad press on that. The S-400 has NO combat record, no demonstrated Anti-hypersonic capability and is a wonderful weapon only on paper, like many Russian weapons systems, the S-500 is in the same class.

The T-14 is capped at 100 units for now, that's not even enough for a single armored brigade! And the SU-57 is a joke, with no deployed squadrons. As for nukes, so what, as long as they go boom, or might, doesn't really matter does it? no one can stop a determined nuclear attack by ICBM's and SLBM's anyway, ours work just fine.
Click to expand...
Everything that I posted is actually factual. Which says something about your naysaying, here. And, to be honest, your naysaying rationalizations show that you don't at-all know what you're talking about and are just bitter over some blunt truth that I posted.

To start with, Russia has only four S-400s in Syria, and they are only guarding Russia's assets at two naval ports which are a long way away from where other action has been taking place in Syria. Russia has said that their S-400 systems will only be used if their own assets become threatened - they don't belong to Syria and they won't be used for the Syrian government's purposes. When the US did its illegal strike on Syria in 2018, France/UK/US purposefully avoided the defensive perimeter of the S-400s in Syria. So, no, it isn't the least-bit surprising that they weren't used to down the illegal US cruise-missile strike on Syria, which wasn't targeting Russia and which didn't even enter within range of the S-400s. BTW, most of the missiles fired in that strike were downed by ancient Soviet-era defensive systems like the S-200. Some warheads, including a Tomahawk, were retrieved intact and given to Russia for research purposes - after they were paraded on a display for a bit.

Israel took-out a Syrian Russian Pantsir S1 with an F-35. The Pantsir S1 doesn't have stealth-detection capability. But that still doesn't explain why it didn't react to to an F-35 with its weapons-out. The training and status of the Syrian crew for it have been questioned by Russia (and I make no assertion as to the truth of Russia's claim):
There can be only two possible explanations for a successful strike against a Pantsir-S1: "One is that it had already used up its ammunition reserve. The other is that it was simply turned off; it wasn't battle ready," Aytech Bizhev, a former Russian Air Force Deputy Commander-in-Chief, said.

"There can be no third option as it wouldn't have let itself to be destroyed… When it's battle-ready it performs constant surveillance of enemy aircraft and has a very fast reaction time. It would've brought down those cruise missiles with either its cannons or own missiles," he explained.

The Israeli footage shows none of the Syrian Pantsir's weapons were even pointing at the incoming missile. The three human figures standing outside the vehicle in the video, likely the crew, also suggest that it wasn't operational at the time of the attack.
Click to expand...


motomonkey said:
Your claims as to Russian actions and it's results, in the Ukraine is frankly, ludicrous. Russian efforts to distract and obfuscate the world from it's invasion of it's neighbors are pitiful, as fake youtube videos demonstrate very well.

Just stop posting bullshit claims that have no basis in reality.
Click to expand...
There literally was no invasion of Crimea or Ukraine by Russia. So, you claiming that there are distraction efforts from something that didn't happen is what's ludicrous.

As for your "fake youtube video" claim, it was acknowledged as real by the US state when assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland, who is one of the two persons in the leaked phonecall between her and the US ambassador to Ukraine, apologized for saying "fuck the EU" in the conversation after she was condemned for it by US allies. So much for your conspiracy theory there.

As you can see, it is actually your claims which are BS and have no basis in reality. So, just stop.
 
Last edited:
motomonkey said:
Turkey, actually. it's one of the reasons we kicked Turkey from the F-35 program, having F-35's at close range to a Russian air defense system able to be accessed by Russian technicians that can analyze the aircraft for ways to defeat it's stealth capabilities was a VERY bad idea.

Saudi Arabia has been using Patriot for a long time, with good results vs Iranian supplied SCUD copies that keep getting fired at Saudi Arabia from Yemen.
Click to expand...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-did-saudi-arabia-want-russias-s-400-114711
 
motomonkey said:
Saudi Arabia has been using Patriot for a long time, with good results vs Iranian supplied SCUD copies that keep getting fired at Saudi Arabia from Yemen.
Click to expand...


There's a reason why the US has been threatening everybody (Turkey, India, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, China...) with sanctions if they choose to buy Russia's S-400 instead of the Patriot (not that China is offered the Patriot in any case): The Patriot simply cannot compete. And that's why countries are buying the S-400 even in the face of US threats of sanctions.

The US' newest Patriot Missile system:

Detection range - 180 km
Interception range - 130 km
Minimum range - 10 km
Max speed - 7,920 km /h
Deployment time - 25 minutes
Stealth detection – suspected to be minimal

Russia's S-400 system:

Detection range - 600 km
Interception range - 400 km
Minimum range - 2 km
Max speed - 17,180 km /h
Deployment time - 5 minutes
Stealth detection – suspected to be moderate but not comprehensive
 
Last edited:
Delicieuxz said:


There's a reason why the US has been threatening everybody (Turkey, India, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar...) with sanctions if they choose to buy Russia's S-400 instead of the Patriot. The Patriot simply cannot compete.

The US' Patriot Missile system:

Detection range - 180 km
Interception range - 130 km
Minimum range - 10 km
Max speed - 7,920 km /h
Deployment time - 25 minutes
Stealth detection – suspected to be minimal

Russia's S-400 system:

Detection range - 600 km
Interception range - 400 km
Minimum range - 2 km
Max speed - 17,180 km /h
Deployment time - 5 minutes
Stealth detection – suspected to be moderate but not comprehensive
Click to expand...

Looks great on paper doesn’t it? To bad it’s never actually been used.

and Patriot works just fine, every system has an occasional bad missile
 
UltraTaco said:
Legit :)
https://www.quora.com/Did-Russia-invade-Ukraine/answers/161900115
View attachment 311293
Click to expand...
You know what isn't anonymous? All the links and video in the post verifying its statements, the fact that Russia's large Black Sea naval base in Crimea hosted thousands of troops at the time of the US-sponsored coup in Kiev, the fact that Crimea was no-longer a part of any Ukraine following the overruling of Ukraine's constitution, the Crimean people's desire for those troops to protect them from Kiev, and the definition of 'Invasion'. There were lots of Russian troops in Crimea (15,000 or so) - but there wasn't an invasion of Crimea by Russia. And Russia's troop presence was welcomed by both Crimea and illegally-ousted Ukrainian president Yanukovych, who also called on Russia to send its military to Kiev to stop the coup.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top