Russia: strategic ballistic missile launched in White Sea

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20050927/41525719.html

MOSCOW, September 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russia has successfully conducted the first in-flight test of a Bulava strategic ballistic missile in a White Sea trial, a top defense ministry official said Tuesday.

The missile was launched from the Dmitry Donskoy, a Typhoon class ballistic missile submarine, at 5:22 p.m. Moscow time (1:22 p.m. GMT).

"At the estimated elapsed time a dummy warhead hit the designated 'target' at the Kura test site on the Kamchatka Peninsula," a navy spokesman said.

In 2004, Russia successfully conducted surface and underwater pop-up tests of the Bulava strategic ballistic missile.

Russia's Borey-class nuclear submarines will be equipped with Bulava missiles. Two submarines are being constructed at the Sevmash plant in Severodvinsk in the Arkhangelsk region. The first submarine, the Yury Dolgoruky, will be commissioned in 2006 and the second, the Alexander Nevsky, in 2007.

[Telnyashka]

good news woot

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

Putin also said that new hypersonic missile is being developed which is practicaly unstopabale due to its high speed and manueverability.

[b.scheller]

If only Russia, spent as much money on their people, as they do on their rockets.

[Edit]

[wholagun]

If only Russia, spent as much money on rockets, as they do on their own people.

**you got that backwards**
replace people with rockets, and rockets with people.

EDIT:

how perfect is that I point out a typo in someone's post, and I make the same mistake in mine.......

[Lokos]

replace people with rockets, and people with rockets.

'If only Russia spent as much money on rockets, as they do on rockets'?

Lokos

[nahimov]

If only Russia, spent as much money on their people, as they do on their rockets.

[Edit]

Russia is no longer socialist so government should not spend money on people. Instead here is an idea. People should try and EARN money.

[Igor01]

If only Russia, spent as much money on their people, as they do on their rockets.
[Edit]

If Russia does that eventually you'll have to hold the Chinese-Polish border all by yourself :)

[CG51]

Any pics of the missile? Sounds interesting.

[Telnyashka]

If only Russia, spent as much money on their people, as they do on their rockets.

[Edit]

And countries like USA do?

You have to understand, most nations with a big and strong military dont have that good social programs. Canada has free healthcare and good social programs but they have small army. USA has a large army and they have pretty good social programs compared to rest of the world, but because it needs its armed forces it will never have free healthcare or the best social programs in the world...It just doesn't work that much.

As well...you dont have to spend money on your people. In the late 80s, 1 in 5 people worked in the Military Industrial Complex. By building rockets and weapons you are keeping jobs. This is a good thing. More contracts for rockets means more labour, more jobs, more money.

You have to understand Russia and it's economy is extremely closely tied to its Military Industrial Complex and its Armed Forces.

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

i see most Russians here are out of the loop on current events and Putin. Putin has also said in his "questions to president from people" this week that good chunk of oil money or, stabilization fund, will be spent on housing, education, and couple of other social programs.

[Igor01]

i see most Russians here are out of the loop on current events and Putin. Putin has also said in his "questions to president from people" this week that good chunk of oil money or, stabilization fund, will be spent on housing, education, and couple of other social programs.

Many analysts also predict huge cadre reshuffling in the higher echelons, because the upcoming "Left Turn" (funny enough, Khodorkovskiy was the first one to use the term) will dip into the Stablisation Fund (oil revenues) that according to some have been the target of various monetery schemes by some entrepreneuring officials.

[GazB]

Any pics of the missile? Sounds interesting.

Bulava is a modified TOPOL-M missile. The unification of land and sea based ICBMs will save a lot of money, while at the same time improve the performance of existing forces.

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

Any pics of the missile? Sounds interesting.

no actual pictures, but this is the supposed multi-warhead missile which can not be stopped by any current missile shield, as defense minister Ivanov stated earlier this year.

[Marmot1]

Any pics of the missile? Sounds interesting.

no actual pictures, but this is the supposed multi-warhead missile which can not be stopped by any current missile shield, as defense minister Ivanov stated earlier this year.

Ok.... Against which anti-missile systems they have tested them to release such cathegoric statement???

[Thor]

If only Russia, spent as much money on their people, as they do on their rockets.

[Edit]

And countries like USA do?

You have to understand, most nations with a big and strong military dont have that good social programs. Canada has free healthcare and good social programs but they have small army. USA has a large army and they have pretty good social programs compared to rest of the world, but because it needs its armed forces it will never have free healthcare or the best social programs in the world...It just doesn't work that much.

As well...you dont have to spend money on your people. In the late 80s, 1 in 5 people worked in the Military Industrial Complex. By building rockets and weapons you are keeping jobs. This is a good thing. More contracts for rockets means more labour, more jobs, more money.

You have to understand Russia and it's economy is extremely closely tied to its Military Industrial Complex and its Armed Forces.
The Soviet Union spent 30-50 percent of BNP on the military.

And still they lost.

Your understanding of economics is on a child's level, but what could you expect.

[Lokos]

The Soviet Union spent 30-50 percent of BNP on the military.

And still they lost.

If I told you that your statement comprises a circular argument, would you know what I am talking about?

Lokos

[Thor]

Take off those red sun glasses and step into the real world..

You could tell people why you fled your country as well.

[GazB]

Yes, the old... Russia is evil... they spent billions on weapons instead of improving the quality of life for their citizens chestnut.

Of course how does that explain the wests little experiences with the bomber gap and the missile gap?

For quite some time the Soviets played a little game where they would fly new bomber designs that hadn't even entered service yet at the moscow parades. They'd fly them off out of sight and fly them around so that there seemed like hundreds when there were only a couple of dozen. The west took this at face value and started producing lots of bombers to equal the soviets. The soviets also tried to promote the idea that they also had thousands of missiles too, which the US military was only too willing to accept.

The result was a perceived bomber and missile gap. U2 spy flights and later satellite recon photos showed there to be a missile gap and a bomber gap alright... but it showed that gap was in favour of the west.

Worse than that the military had been clamoring for that gap to be reduced... the gap that didn't exist, and they had put their industrial might into closing that gap by making more bombers and more missiles. When it was revealed that the reality was a gap in the favour of the west (by a significant margin) what did that peace loving citizen friendly west do? Did it just stop all plans to build all these unnecessary bombers and missiles? Did it reinvest that money in social and health programs for its own citizens?

Nope.

It changed its policy from that of parity to that of first strike capability. They decided that if they got their advantage up to a certain level they could fight and win a nuclear war, so they built the missiles and the planes... trillions of dollars wasted, and of course the Soviets were obliged to do the same or risk the West testing their first strike capability.

The Russians were the bad guys... yup, when stalin was in power I'd agree with that, but since then there have been bad guys on both sides... and currently only one superpower that unilaterally bombs other countries it doesn't actually have any business bombing.

[Lokos]

You could tell people why you fled your country as well.

LOL.

Okay, I'll bite, when did I flee my country?

Lokos

[Drunkensquid]

Ever since the collapse of the ussr woot russia has been the laughing stock of the world, take the G7 summits for example, the meeting of the leaders of the 7 most industrialized nations and russia :lol:

Why would russia testfire a missile that it will never use? because that's the only tool they have that puts them in the same league with the USA. It's nothing more than saber rattling, a tool of intimitation of smaller countries.

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

Any pics of the missile? Sounds interesting.

no actual pictures, but this is the supposed multi-warhead missile which can not be stopped by any current missile shield, as defense minister Ivanov stated earlier this year.

Ok.... Against which anti-missile systems they have tested them to release such cathegoric statement???

I dont know, go kill yourself.

[b.scheller]

Any pics of the missile? Sounds interesting.

no actual pictures, but this is the supposed multi-warhead missile which can not be stopped by any current missile shield, as defense minister Ivanov stated earlier this year.

Ok.... Against which anti-missile systems they have tested them to release such cathegoric statement???

I dont know, go kill yourself.

Everyone's I.Q in this thread, has just gone down by about ten points, after reading your amazing, defense, and all your arguments to support your claims, that Stalin never killed anyone.

Off you go troll.

[nahimov]

Ever since the collapse of the ussr woot russia has been the laughing stock of the world, take the G7 summits for example, the meeting of the leaders of the 7 most industrialized nations and russia :lol:

Why would russia testfire a missile that it will never use? because that's the only tool they have that puts them in the same league with the USA. It's nothing more than saber rattling, a tool of intimitation of smaller countries.

Go troll somewhere else. You are not even good at it.

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

Any pics of the missile? Sounds interesting.

no actual pictures, but this is the supposed multi-warhead missile which can not be stopped by any current missile shield, as defense minister Ivanov stated earlier this year.

Ok.... Against which anti-missile systems they have tested them to release such cathegoric statement???

I dont know, go kill yourself.

Everyone's I.Q in this thread, has just gone down by about ten points, after reading your amazing, defense, and all your arguments to support your claims, that Stalin never killed anyone.

Off you go troll.

so iq of everyone in this thread went down becuase of my comments about stalin even though stalin wasnt mentioned in this thread? maybe youre trying too hard to look smart becuase moon is yellow?

[Lokos]

russia has been the laughing stock of the world

:|

Who has been laughing at Russia? Hungary?

Lokos

[Telnyashka]

And still they lost.

rofl rofl

Yes...USSR was defeated by the amazing freedom fighting force of Reagan and democracy! hurray.... :roll:

[Telnyashka]

Ever since the collapse of the ussr woot russia has been the laughing stock of the world, take the G7 summits for example, the meeting of the leaders of the 7 most industrialized nations and russia :lol:

Why would russia testfire a missile that it will never use? because that's the only tool they have that puts them in the same league with the USA. It's nothing more than saber rattling, a tool of intimitation of smaller countries.

Uh...its called replacing old missiles? They are using Bulava and TOPOLs to replace the old Satan missiles.

[Kilgor]

The Russians were the bad guys... yup, when stalin was in power I'd agree with that, but since then there have been bad guys on both sides... and currently only one superpower that unilaterally bombs other countries it doesn't actually have any business bombing.

Yes, things got better once stalin died, but it was still far from a state where you could enjoy freedom of speech, voting, and the many other indictations of human rights that the supporters of the soviet union on this site enjoy today in their western, capitalist democracies.

[NicNZ]

Why would russia testfire a missile that it will never use? because that's the only tool they have that puts them in the same league with the USA. It's nothing more than saber rattling, a tool of intimitation of smaller countries.

Misguided but on the right track; a capable, modern, and effective nuclear arsenal is Russia's most sensible deterrant to would-be invaders. It isnt about intimidating otherr countries in the "Empire" sense of the USSR.

And then there is the export and technology revenue potential.

[ZaakM433]

um... i just dont see how this thing could be used to kill terrorists... Its clearly targeted at the United States considering that it is the only country developing defenses against conventional ICBMs...

So if it is exported, and a country attack the US with it - does that mean the US should attack that country and Russia?

No this is not like conventional weapons that are used (m16 on m16 for instance), this weapon appears to be only relevant against the united states.

ofcourse I didnt actually RTFA, and i feel like crap and am very tired...

Im fine supporting nuclear deterents, but there is no export potential currently or in the near future - not at acceptable risk. Perhaps in the next quarter century the US will also have to rely on nuclear deterents to defend itself.

[Mr.K]

Yes, things got better once stalin died, but it was still far from a state where you could enjoy freedom of speech, voting, and the many other indictations of human rights that the supports of the soviet union on this site enjoy today in their western, capitalist democracies.

Freedom of speech, and voting have little to do with decent life conditions and food on your table. If voting is so essential , how come millions around the globe don't vote, and even if they do they still a have miserable life.Same thing with freedom of speech, all these Moscow intellectuals who were ranting in their kitchen at night ( those who have lived in Russia a bit know what i'm talking about), got the chance to go on the street and continue ranting about how hard and injust life is? Did they actually improve something? Not a bit. Is someone listening to them? Nobody, except some liberal fools. So evenutally they got back to their ranting in the kitchen.
And this applies to every country not only Russia. When Kanye West said that Bush hates black people, did it acutally advanced us to something?

The only way Russia can preserve /mantain it's existance in the world is by weapons. And its the weapons that today allow to Russia to benefit of ''the freedom of speech'', and actually being listened on the international Arena.
No weapons = Russia would be something like a colony with natural ressources, USA and Europe won't babysit it like the eastern european states.

[Kilgor]

.

[b.scheller]

Freedom of speech, and voting have little to do with decent life conditions and food on your table. If voting is so essential , how come millions around the globe don't vote, and even if they do they still a have miserable life.

Name one country, that's currently a dictatorship, that has high standards of living?

Freedom of speech and free elections, have everything to do, with the standards of life. No dictator, ever gave a damn about his people. Hitler condemned the Germans for failing to kill themselves, in the name of the Third Reich. While Stalin, bloodied his whole land, from the Ukraine to Vladivostok. Pinochet, killed thousands of his own people, with no justification, just like the Junta. Pol Pot, believed that if he sacrificed his people, they could go and actually be able to fullfil Marx' ideal. Mao, send millions of his people to death, because he believed that every Chinese person, should have no education, should only read the red book, and have a iron smelter in their backyard.

Can you truly say, that their citizens had it good? They had any more food on the table, they had better, extravagent lives? I'm not talking about the members of the party, or those who were agents of the state, I'm talking about the ordinary citizens?


Same thing with freedom of speech, all these Moscow intellectuals who were ranting in their kitchen at night ( those who have lived in Russia a bit know what i'm talking about), got the chance to go on the street and continue ranting about how hard and injust life is? Did they actually improve something? Not a bit.

You must be foolish to believe, that by picketing, or holding marches, that it will change society over night. It's intellectuals like these, who slowly help, society grow, they help the government eventually grow out of the former regime. Russia, has been left paralyzed by the fall of the Soviet Union. Although, every former Republic and every former Soviet occupied state, where at once also paralyzed, some have progressed while Russia, has taken small steps towards progress, while with this current president, have taken great leaps backward. It's this freedom of speech, that allows you to spread your nationalism on this forum.



Is someone listening to them? Nobody, except some liberal fools. So evenutally they got back to their ranting in the kitchen.
And this applies to every country not only Russia. When Kanye West said that Bush hates black people, did it acutally advanced us to something?

I have read poems, and books by the Russian dissidents, as you metaphorically say, ranted in the kitchen. Do people listen, yes, they do, because it opens up their eyes to the reality of it. Certain elements in society, will continue living in fantasy land, hoping to regain that sense of pride in their state, by signing up their kids to a political based organization like "NASI", which although is a good idea, the politick factor is not.

Has Kayne West rant about George W. Bush opened up people's eyes? Yes, I believe it has, not everyone is aware of the way he has looked at the situation, perhaps he may be wrong, or perhaps he truly is right. People, do start questioning their leaders, because that's what FREEDOM OF SPEECH is about.


The only way Russia can preserve /mantain it's existance in the world is by weapons. And its the weapons that today allow to Russia to benefit of ''the freedom of speech'', and actually being listened on the international Arena.
No weapons = Russia would be something like a colony with natural ressources, USA and Europe won't babysit it like the eastern european states.

Russia, has never been a fully fledged democracy. I'm sorry, but since the fall of communism, the attempt at instilling a democracy within the system, has not been successful. Now, under Putin, you have your "democracy", and yet there is no freedom of speech, nor accountability.

Do you really believe, that maintaining an iron grip on society, is the way to go? No one, should deny that Russia has economic and political problems. You'd be a fool not to, but do you really want a dictator to run and oppress you, for the sake of having the glory, of the former Soviet Union?

Who benefits, from a big robust military? It will not put bread on your dinner table, nor will those rockets, get you any further up ahead on the road to economic prosperity. It's foolish, to think, that Russia, must protect itself, it's already being destroyed by the people in power. Putin, for one. He may have gotten rid of, the oligarchs, but in the end, isn't he a czar himself? He waged war on Chechnya, not to get rid of the terrorist threat, but for people to focus on, how bad it was over there and not in their own backyard. Now, he's trying to strike up, some sense of patriotism, by regaining the "pride" within the military. Something all the older people remember, who lived under Soviet oppression.

-b.scheller

[Telnyashka]

um... i just dont see how this thing could be used to kill terrorists...

Not everything in war involves terrorists.

Think about it this way. Think about why 1/3rd the budget goes into the Rocket Forces, and why it was probably the only department really innefected with the fall of USSR (aside form shortage of nukes etc. and dismantling).

The Rocket Forces is Russia's only detterent. It's army right now isnt in that good shape so, while Russia slowly rebuilds it, it must keep up its shield.

This is just like a guard protecting someone building a house..the guard is the nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

[Mr.K]

For the average citizen life conditions were better in the USSR than in today's Russia, unless he was a criminal or trying to run a buisness. Acutally the people that run buisnesses today are very likley to have a criminal background or are tied to criminals. Intellegencia is still ranting in their kitchens, none of them actually got anywhere, and they think that the world owe's them, and are like you constantly bashing Russia. It's amazing how europeans have double starndards, war on terrorism is ok, but what happens in chechnya is plain wrong.I could argue with you for hours, but i don't see any point, we're not gonna get anywhere, or it will take a very long time to reach a compromise, but it would be still pointless at the end.

[ViktorNavorski]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/avatars/10360637814339e1d420b72.jpg

How do I shoot web?

[Lokos]

How do I shoot web?

Heh. I'm relatively certain that's part of the point of the avatar.

Telnyashka probably knows how to spell 'shoot', seeing as he's mastered many a five, six and, wouldn't you know it, even seven letter words.

Lokos

[NicNZ]

Seven letter words??

[PeterRJG]

How do I shoot web?

Heh. I'm relatively certain that's part of the point of the avatar.

Telnyashka probably knows how to spell 'shoot', seeing as he's mastered many a five, six and, wouldn't you know it, even seven letter words.

Lokos

Well done. That's the most subtle faint praise I've seen handed out on this forum.

Well done sir.

:D

[Lokos]

Seven letter words??

Until Telnyashka brought a few out, even I was ignorant of those seven tier marvels!


Well done. That's the most subtle faint praise I've seen handed out on this forum.

Well done sir.

Very Happy

Shucks, look how you embarass me, Johnny!

:)

Lokos

[Freibier]

As long as the US has a doctrine of preventive nuclear strikes, I'm glad that the russians have the capability to nuke the **** out of the US, just in case if they plan anything stupid.

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

Freedom of speech, and voting have little to do with decent life conditions and food on your table. If voting is so essential , how come millions around the globe don't vote, and even if they do they still a have miserable life.

good point koutch.

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

Bulava employs hypersonic warheads.

http://www.missilethreat.com/news/200509270925.html


Russia Tests Bulava SS-NX-30 SLBM For First Time


September 27, 2005 :: RIA-Novosti :: News
Russia today conducted the much anticipated first flight test of its new Bulava SS-NX-30 intercontinental ballistic missile. The missile was successfully launched from the Dmitry Donskoy Typhoon-class submarine of the Northern Fleet from the White Sea, and it traveled to its designated target at the Kura testing range on the Kamchatka peninsula.

The Bulava had undergone surface and underwater “pop-up” tests in September 2004 to test the submarine release mechanism, but it did not involve the firing of any missile engines.

The test comes a day after President Putin affirmed that Russia continues to develop hypersonic maneuverable warheads for its new missile systems which are capable of evading the sort of midcourse missile defenses being deployed by the United States. The Bulava is the sea-based variant of the Topol-M missile, said to carry such warheads.

Russian Navy spokesman Igor Dygalo told Itar Tass that the Borey-class nuclear submarines will be equipped with the Bulava missiles; two such submarines are being constructed at the Sevmash plant in Severodvinsk in the Arkhangelsk region. The first submarine, the Yury Dolgoruky, will be commissioned in 2006 and the second, the Alexander Nevsky, in 2007.

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

http://www.missilethreat.com/



Putin Reaffirms Plans for Hypersonic Maneuverable Warheads

In a question-and-answer session with members of the Russian public broadcast live by Russian RTR television, President Putin spoke of Russia’s plans to rearm its military forces with advanced new weapons, including strategic missiles capable of penetrating foreign defenses. Putin discussed in particular hypersonic strategic systems capable of maneuvering both in course and altitude which are capable of evading ballistic missile defenses such as those being developed by “partner countries”—a probable reference to the midcourse defenses gradually being fielded by the United States. Putin has spoken of these maneuverable systems on several occasions. Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov referred to them as well in a recent television interview.

Excerpt of Putin response from Russian television and print media:

There is a lot going on from the point of view of re-equipping our army. This goes for state-of-the-art tanks. For the first time, large batches of new tanks for the army will be procured. We are moving towards the trials of upgraded new missiles that will be employed both on sea and on land. We are beginning to procure new ballistic missiles, including mobile systems.

We are continuing to develop precision-guided weapons in the testing of which I recently took part, as you probably have seen. It was a long-range, precision-guided weapon [possible reference to SS-N-23 launch on August 16, or to the test of a new cruise missile]. We shall be developing—indeed we are developing and will be bringing into service—new precision-guided strategic systems. I have already spoken about it. They are the kind that no-one in the world has obtained or is likely to obtain before we do. They are systems that will operate at hypersonic speeds and will be able to change direction in terms of heading and altitude. They are virtually unassailable systems, unassailable for anything including the missile defenses that are being developed in some of our partner countries.
Whereas only a few years ago Russia bought very little for the army, Putin said, “A great deal has been done in the past few years to restore the defense industry’s financial health. Xinhua cited Putin as saying that some 5 billion US dollars worth of Russian arms were exported in 2004. Putin said that expansion to foreign markets was a way to support Russia’s defense sector financially. “If our specialists make it to foreign markets and uphold our interests there, it will be a very good job,” the president said.

In a curious follow-up story published by RIA Novosti, however, an anonymous “air defense expert” is cited as saying that Putin, “must have meant state-of-the-art air defense systems when he said that Russia would deploy new hypersonic missile systems, virtually invulnerable to enemy defenses.” The air defense expert quoted by RIA Novosti added that specialists and researchers had been working on these weapons for a long time, and that the new system would (allegedly) combine the functions of air defense, missile defense and space defense.

To suggest that these systems referenced are air defenses would seem to make little sense, however—air defenses (for example Russia’s S-300 and S-400 systems) have no need to penetrate American missile defenses.

[sir-chimp]

Freedom of speech, and voting have little to do with decent life conditions and food on your table. If voting is so essential , how come millions around the globe don't vote, and even if they do they still a have miserable life.

good point koutch.

that has to be simply the most ignorant thing I have ever read. Dictatorial police states of the world unite :roll: It is just so much easier for a populace to achieve a better quality of life with such laughable rights as freespeech and the ability to hold their governments accountable for their actions via voting. I mean one only has to look at the quality of life in west germany and east germany durring the cold war, or north and south korea today to see the obvious logic of your reasoning.

[duck]

What ideals and values does the current Russian army defend? Or is it just about keeping the borders of Russia as they are now?

[Lokos]

What ideals and values does the current Russian army defend? Or is it just about keeping the borders of Russia as they are now?

Few armies defend 'values and ideals'. They are statutory bodies, defined and limited in their function by the Constitution. The primary function of the army in most nations is to maintain the sanctity of the borders of those nations, and to assure security for those who are counted as citizens by the nations in question.

Lokos

[duck]

Lokos:

Ok, let me put it this way: What ideals and values are pre-eminent in Russia today? What is the essence or core of Russia in your opinion?

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

Lokos:

Ok, let me put it this way: What ideals and values are pre-eminent in Russia today? What is the essence or core of Russia in your opinion?

truth.

[duck]

Lokos:

Ok, let me put it this way: What ideals and values are pre-eminent in Russia today? What is the essence or core of Russia in your opinion?

truth.

An equal truth for Russians, Chechens, Tatars, Udmurtians and Kalmyks alike?

[Telnyashka]

Seven letter words??

Yes...soon the time will come for me to master then next plateau...

then no one can stop me, ya hear, no one.

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

Lokos:

Ok, let me put it this way: What ideals and values are pre-eminent in Russia today? What is the essence or core of Russia in your opinion?

truth.

An equal truth for Russians, Chechens, Tatars, Udmurtians and Kalmyks alike?

yes, and ducks.

[duck]

Lokos:

Ok, let me put it this way: What ideals and values are pre-eminent in Russia today? What is the essence or core of Russia in your opinion?

truth.

An equal truth for Russians, Chechens, Tatars, Udmurtians and Kalmyks alike?

yes, and ducks.

Then why do Russian authorities resort to suppression and even murder to stifle ethnic conflict within the Russian Federation?

[b.scheller]

How can "truth" exist, within a state, that has slowly been reverting back to despotism? How can "truth be preached, if the head of state and head of government, Putin, is barring freedom of speech, and barring free media from existing within the borders of Russia?

Truth and justice, only exist within a free society. The Russian Federation, sadly is not such a state. Thus, "truth" is an attribute, that no longer exists. Has there ever been truth within the Russian state, where over decades, history has been re-written, dozens upon dozens of times, to fit the ideals of the regime?

-b.scheller

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

yawn, i thought someone would comment on missiles.

[b.scheller]

Have you noticed, that this is in the Political Discussion and Rants part of the forum, it's neither in Equipment nor in General...

Your overall attitude and behaviour, is that of a fourth grader. You don't even want to argue and support your claims, just trying to get a flame-war going. If you had no intention of supporting your claims, than what was the point of posting in the Poltical Discussion forum?

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

Have you noticed, that this is in the Political Discussion and Rants part of the forum, it's neither in Equipment nor in General...

Your overall attitude and behaviour, is that of a fourth grader. You don't even want to argue and support your claims, just trying to get a flame-war going. If you had no intention of supporting your claims, than what was the point of posting in the Poltical Discussion forum?

why am i trying to get a flame war going on again? maybe this shouldve been posted in a general section but i guess i didnt realize it since i posted this right after another article in this section, but besides all that how does your or duck's post relate to political discussion of weapons and nuclear weapons specificaly?

[Igor01]

Then why do Russian authorities resort to suppression and even murder to stifle ethnic conflict within the Russian Federation?

You should try being in the zone of "ethnic conflict" sometime, perhaps then you'll come to appreciate the responsibility that the government has towards protecting its citizens.

[GazB]

Then why do Russian authorities resort to suppression and even murder to stifle ethnic conflict within the Russian Federation?

Yes, Ethnic conflicts should be left to run their course... like in Kosovo... Bombing tractors was NATOs solution wasn't it?

[Lokos]

Ok, let me put it this way: What ideals and values are pre-eminent in Russia today? What is the essence or core of Russia in your opinion?

Ask a Russian. Although, asserting that, at the core of any nation, there is some sort of value or ideal, is a baseless proposition.


An equal truth for Russians, Chechens, Tatars, Udmurtians and Kalmyks alike?

Let's say for a moment that the base ideal of the Russian state is 'truth'. You ask whether it holds true for everyone in the state. Can a truth remain as such for everyone in any state? I put it to you that it cannot. Not in the US, not in Russia, not anywhere. But that's presupposing that the ideal behind the Russian state is 'truth', and I balk at the very concept of these underlying 'values and ideals'.


Then why do Russian authorities resort to suppression and even murder to stifle ethnic conflict within the Russian Federation?

Why do US authorities do the same (stifle conflict, I mean - we can safely set aside the 'ethnic' part of it, for now)? Why was there a civil war in the United States, one hundred and fifty years ago? It's because force is a key tool in the state's arsenal in maintaining its own integrity, even at the expense of its citizenry.


How can "truth" exist, within a state, that has slowly been reverting back to despotism?

How can 'truth' exist anywhere, when it's pre-constructed according to the ideology of its point of origin? This game of absolutes in a universe of relativity holds no water.


Truth and justice, only exist within a free society.

... If this sort of world view lets you sleep better at night, go for it, champ.


Your overall attitude and behaviour, is that of a fourth grader.

And yours is that of a relatively intelligent person sated with remaining within the four walls of your own point of view for all time. Which is the worse?

Lokos

[b.scheller]

You can ask, the same question about justice then. What is justice? Do people pursue it, for their own means, or do they persue it, for the sake of jusitce.

Socrates stated, that a just man, would never go after the injust. Earlier in Plato's Republic, he stated that a perfect "Just society", is a despotic communistic dictatorship, with censorship of every single level. From agenda, to the way class is set up. If you ever read Nineteeneight-four, the society of George Orwell's Airstrip one, is similar to that of Socrates' perfect just society.

The definition of Socrates' perfect society, is this. He states that classes of gaurdians (the leaders) and the auxhillary will be censored and moderated. Music (Arts, music in general) and Gymnastics (Physical activity) They will not be allowed to hold goods, nor will they be allowed to openly have relations with one another, in the case that they do. The higher power (the state) will take away their offspring, thus they have no material nor immaterial wealth, thus, they have no forces behind which they can be controlled, in politick nor defense of the city state. As for the class, that creates the goods, although they are on the lowest class scale, they are free to do what they wish and not censored by the state.

Will it then mean, that justice is tainted by the censors? You cannot have justice, within a society that does not allow you to speak of truth, no matter how unorthodox, unpopular and backwards it may be, in the sense of fitting with socio-political culture of a given state.

Lokos, explain how justice can exist within any other form of "non-free" society.

-b.scheller

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

You can ask, the same question about justice then. What is justice? Do people pursue it, for their own means, or do they persue it, for the sake of jusitce.

Socrates stated, that a just man, would never go after the injust. Earlier in Plato's Republic, he stated that a perfect "Just society", is a despotic communistic dictatorship, with censorship of every single level. From agenda, to the way class is set up. If you ever read Nineteeneight-four, the society of George Orwell's Airstrip one, is similar to that of Socrates' perfect just society.

The definition of Socrates' perfect society, is this. He states that classes of gaurdians (the leaders) and the auxhillary will be censored and moderated. Music (Arts, music in general) and Gymnastics (Physical activity) They will not be allowed to hold goods, nor will they be allowed to openly have relations with one another, in the case that they do. The higher power (the state) will take away their offspring, thus they have no material nor immaterial wealth, thus, they have no forces behind which they can be controlled, in politick nor defense of the city state. As for the class, that creates the goods, although they are on the lowest class scale, they are free to do what they wish and not censored by the state.

Will it then mean, that justice is tainted by the censors? You cannot have justice, within a society that does not allow you to speak of truth, no matter how unorthodox, unpopular and backwards it may be, in the sense of fitting with socio-political culture of a given state.

Lokos, explain how justice can exist within any other form of "non-free" society.

-b.scheller

how do you define "non-free" society? There are set of rules/law in all of societies but not all of them are the same: just becuase you cant do one thing in a country that is considered totaly acceptable in another country doesnt make society "non-free".
Listen, can you take all this bull**** to your Chechnya topic?

[b.scheller]

My Chechnya topic? I've never, started a thread on Chechnya, and if I have, well please enlighten me.

Besides, a free society, is obviously defined by the Human Rights and a working constitution. The U.S.S.R had one, but it didn't mean that the constitution meant squat.

[Telnyashka]

Russia has a constitution...

[b.scheller]

Russia has a constitution...

A constitution does not create a free society. A constitution can exist, but as long as it's not being followed, it's not a society where the government is accountable for it's actions. A free society, does not only end with a constitution. It has to follow the Human Rights, in order, for it's citizens to live well, perhaps with out economic prosperity, but free from persecution and oppression.

[Telnyashka]

A constitution does not create a free society


a free society, is obviously defined by the Human Rights and a working constitution.

You just said a free society is defined by a constitution...now you say it doesnt. Make up your mind

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

My Chechnya topic? I've never, started a thread on Chechnya, and if I have, well please enlighten me.

Besides, a free society, is obviously defined by the Human Rights and a working constitution. The U.S.S.R had one, but it didn't mean that the constitution meant squat.

listen, there is a Chechnya topic in general section i call it "yours" becuase it serves purpose for people with your agenda. Ballistic warheads have nothing to do with what you are posting here.

[duck]

Ypu guys seem hellbent on being respected and feared. ;) How about being respected and liked?

[sir-chimp]

Lets see he is talking about politics in the Political Discussions and Rants forum. Ballistic warheads have no business in this section, unless you as the starter of the topic wished for a political discussion on them, and the country of origin of said warheads. Also, since ballistic warheads are foremost a political weapon - it is hard not to bring politics into any discussion about them.

[b.scheller]

A constitution does not create a free society


a free society, is obviously defined by the Human Rights and a working constitution.

You just said a free society is defined by a constitution...now you say it doesnt. Make up your mind

I'm glad you, quoted my statement, but let me break it down...
This was my first statement:

A constitution does not create a free society

This was my point, and a very ambigious and general definition of a "free society", I apologize for it being so ambigious and general, but I than went ahead and added a little more complexity and detail into my original point. To make sure, that you did not misconstrue.

a free society, is obviously defined by the Human Rights and a working constitution.

Russia may have a "constitution", but I don't believe that it works. On top of that, a consititution and Human Rights, must correlate, relate and respect each other, in order for a free society, to exist. Russia has neither enforced one, nor the other.

Cleared up? I never had any contrasting information with in my posts.

As for Chechnya, I don't support terrorism by the Chechens. At the same time, as Russia fights its terrorists, they are still indirectly supporting them, it's a Catch-22 as they say. By selling rockets and arnaments to all the different countries in the Middle East, they support the same terrorist organization within Chechnya. Do you truly believe that, selling rockets to Syria, will not cause backlash against your own countrymen? Besides, your fighting against fundamentalist "Islamists", how is condemning one group, while supporting another, make sense?

Don't be foolish, just because they don't sell it directly, doesn't mean that those same weapons will not eventually be used against Russians. Read posts, before you start going off tangents. You'll soon lose all the respect, and credibility on these forums.

-b.scheller

[Telnyashka]

I said this once I'll say it again. War in Chechnya is over. Notice how there has been no activity in the past...what...5 years? However what I do forsee, and hopefully Russian government does too, is expansion into Caucasus.

This is why Beslan was commited from Ingushetia, and more bombings in Dagestan. Chechnya is sealed up tighter then a virgin headmaster's daughter on a sunday night so they expand to other regions like Dagesten and Ingushetia.

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

Lets see he is talking about politics in the Political Discussions and Rants forum. Ballistic warheads have no business in this section, unless you as the starter of the topic wished for a political discussion on them, and the country of origin of said warheads. Also, since ballistic warheads are foremost a political weapon - it is hard not to bring politics into any discussion about them.

ignored.

[sir-chimp]

Lets see he is talking about politics in the Political Discussions and Rants forum. Ballistic warheads have no business in this section, unless you as the starter of the topic wished for a political discussion on them, and the country of origin of said warheads. Also, since ballistic warheads are foremost a political weapon - it is hard not to bring politics into any discussion about them.

ignored.


ok doky ;) rofl

[GazB]

Ypu guys seem hellbent on being respected and feared. How about being respected and liked?

Fear is cheaper. To be liked by the west you have to let western companies come in and buy up all your oil assets so all you get is tax money on the crude. Ask the Iranians. You could ask the Saudi people while you are at it too. Look at the strip mining that took place in Eastern Germany. They are still getting screwed after more than 15 years.

Russia should ignore the US and get together with China and India and other growing countries. It is ironic that Russia has a better relationship with its oldarch enemy Germany than it does with the US. It is not that the Germans fear them more. They actually make an effort to try to understand Russia and what it needs and wants. The US just seems to assume that everyone in the world wants to be like them and think the same way they do.

[NicNZ]

Ugh, but who wants to negotiate and do business with Russians

[Sergei]

Ugh, but who wants to negotiate and do business with Russians

American "screw-everybody" money don't interest Russia much. In fact, there is so little American investment in Russia you can call it "non-existant". Russia makes a lot more by trading with its neighbours.

[Baltic]

Russia should ignore the US and get together with China and India and other growing countries.

That will never happen
It is ironic that Russia has a better relationship with its oldarch enemy Germany than it does with the US. It is not that the Germans fear them more. They actually make an effort to try to understand Russia and what it needs and wants.

No they don't. They are just using Russia to get oil and not asking questions.

[Lokos]

You can ask, the same question about justice then. What is justice?

You answer your own question. I have an idea of what justice is for me. However, the concept of justice is as intangible as the concept of truth. Your truth and your justice may not be the truth and justice of your neighbour. And no version of the aforementioned is 'better' - your version will simply intrinsically and inherently appeal more to you.


Socrates stated, that a just man, would never go after the injust.

Socrates was prepared to deal with absolutes. A mistake on his part, in my opinion.


Earlier in Plato's Republic, he stated that a perfect "Just society", is a despotic communistic dictatorship, with censorship of every single level.

Is that the case, from your point of view? If so, then yes, that's a perfect 'just society'. If not, then it isn't. Your truth is yours, and yours alone to live by.


Lokos, explain how justice can exist within any other form of "non-free" society.

Quite simply. It may not be a justice you recognize, understand or agree with. But to those who consider it justice, it is no less so because you happen to disagree with it. For me, it may be justice that a convicted murderer is killed by the state. For another, it may be more just to lock them up for life. Why is my point of view superior to theirs? Why is theirs superior to mine? Why does either have to be superior?

Different conceptions of justice are just that. You consider your own to be the transcendant conceptualization of justice. Yet, such a thing cannot exist, because our abstract thinking is contextual.

I hope that answers your question.

Lokos

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

You answer your own question. I have an idea of what justice is for me. However, the concept of justice is as intangible as the concept of truth. Your truth and your justice may not be the truth and justice of your neighbour. And no version of the aforementioned is 'better' - your version will simply intrinsically and inherently appeal more to you.


I agree about justice being intangible but not your view of truth. Truth essentialy involves many things including justice, but truth is always same to everyone. Truth might be bad or good and level of truth of either being bad or good can be perecieved differently by different people, but as long as you are true to self and others good things eventualy happen. Being truthfull in every way is a sign of good morals. You cant always be truthfull while hurting others, eventualy this attitude will lead to your own distruction pretty fast.

[Telnyashka]

BRIC is forming so no worries...

[GazB]

Ugh, but who wants to negotiate and do business with Russians

Which is exactly the problem. There is a current market dislike to anything Russian regarding everything except military matters... and even then military matters are very political. (ie when you buy a plane you are also buying military support... ie buy an american plane and you expect America to help you out, unless the guy you are fighting with is more important to america than you are. Works the same with other countries, though obviously america is more powerful so it is more noticible with them.)

The only way they could change that politically wouldbe to become like saudi arabia. Basically ignore the local population and SA's national interests and bend with the breese like a reed to the USA. When you are a monarchy that is OK because you can't get voted out. Yeltsen is popular in the west because that is exactly what he did. He is unpopular at home for the same reasons.

Putin is following that tight rope of trying to make new friends while not being the Wests bitch.

Friendlyness toward the Russians will not change overnight. I have read a book written in the mid 1800 by a british artillery officer who describes the Russians as half asian and untrustworthy... and a serious threat to British colonialism in India. This has nothing to do with communism. Even here in New Zealand we have artillery mounted in several ports that date back to the 1800s and they were built to fend off the Russians... and the French... and to a lesser extent the Americans. Most people today thought they were to stop the Japs in WWII but they are much older than that.

The reality is that there are some who will never treat the Russians as friends... just as there are some that will never forgive the Japanese or Germans, or French etc etc.

Being a reed won't help.

In fact Americas policy of coalition of the willing suggests that even if you have supported the US for decades if you don't jump on board with the current war you aren't much of a friend anyway... In such a situation what value is there in the New Zealanders sending troops to Vietnam in the 60s and early 70s etc etc.

[b.scheller]

I think, the prejudice that stems from Russian-made weapons, is the result of using inferior quality weapons that were bought in surplus, throughout the Cold War. When fighting against Western arnaments, many fighter planes such as the Mig-21, Mig-25 or even the Mig-29, proved inferior in quality to the weaponry of the West (mainly American and even European [excluding Dassault Mirage]).

Of course, as you have stated, it is also the result of political action. States such as Poland, are attempting to move away from Russian weaponry, not only because it has been inferior and outdated for quite some time (practically since it was originally bought) but also because they want to move from everything Russian.

-b.scheller

[Lokos]

I think, the prejudice that stems from Russian-made weapons, is the result of using inferior quality weapons that were bought in surplus, throughout the Cold War. When fighting against Western arnaments, many fighter planes such as the Mig-21, Mig-25 or even the Mig-29, proved inferior in quality to the weaponry of the West (mainly American and even European [excluding Dassault Mirage]).

The Israelis used this 'inferior' equipment to great effect in the '47 war, the '67 war etc.

Iraqi Soviet armor did fine in combat against Iranian Western armor, achieving superior kill rates.

Accusing Russians of making 'inferior' equipment is like saying the US makes 'inferior' equipment because Egypt's M1's would be smoking hulks within hours/days of the start of another general Arab-Israeli war. Soviet equipment was suited to a very particular theater of war: central Europe. The Soviets also had the combined arms doctrine and logistical capability to utilize it effectively. Don't blame the equipment for the inadequacies of the personnel manning it.

Lastly, anyone who bases the performance of Soviet tanks, in particular, on the performance of Iraqi forces in the two Gulf Wars since 1990 is making a very significant error.

Lokos

[Lokos]

Mig-25 or even the Mig-29

When did the above prove 'inferior', by the way?

Lokos

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

I think, the prejudice that stems from Russian-made weapons, is the result of using inferior quality weapons that were bought in surplus, throughout the Cold War. When fighting against Western arnaments, many fighter planes such as the Mig-21, Mig-25 or even the Mig-29, proved inferior in quality to the weaponry of the West (mainly American and even European [excluding Dassault Mirage]).

-b.scheller

Amazing!

[Amerikosskiy_xyu]

to add to GazB's comments.
Russia was always looked at with distrust, fear or even hate, atleast from the 17th century as Russia became largest land mass and kept advancing in land acquistions.

i see missile discussion will not be picked up.. :/

[duck]

The cousin of my grandpa was a czarist officer educated in St.Petersburg military academies. It has been very interesting to try to follow on his footsteps during business visits in that magnificient town.

The other thing is he fought the Red Army later in his life. :| Anyways, I would encourage every member of MP.net to visit Russia if they can. The only things I find objectable in St.Pete are the tough street kids at nighttime and the crazy taxi drivers from the Caucasus. p-)

[Lokos]

The other thing is he fought the Red Army later in his life. Neutral

Your grandfather's cousin rises in my esteem.

Lokos