Russia Warns NATO of Nuclear Build Up

[wholagun]

Russia warns Nato of new arms race

IAN MATHER DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT
imather@scotlandonsunday.com


IF LAST week’s ceremony in Washington to welcome seven new members to Nato had been a marriage service there would have been a loud objection from the back of the church.

In no uncertain terms Russia has made plain its view that the new partners should "not lawfully be joined together", and last week defence minister Sergei Ivanov even warned that he might order a build-up of the country’s nuclear defences.

Moscow’s icy blast came as "instruments of accession" to Nato were signed by the prime ministers of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in Washington.

It is Nato’s biggest enlargement ever. But the alliance is in no mood to compromise. Hardly was the ink dry on the accession documents than it dispatched four F-16 fighters to Lithuania to provide air policing over the three Baltic states, which have been without any warplanes since they broke from the Soviet Union in 1991.

The deployments added to Russia’s growing sense of unease about the eastward expansion of its former Cold War enemy.

While President Vladimir Putin has appeared relaxed, the most strident note has been struck by the lower house of the Duma, which passed a resolution calling for Russia to reconsider its defence strategy if Nato continued to ignore Moscow’s interests.

"Common responses to modern global challenges don’t require a build-up of weapons on the territories of Russia’s neighbours," said the resolution, which was passed by 305 to 41 votes, declared.

The head of the Duma’s defence affairs committee, Col Gen Viktor Zavarzin, added that the Russian military could counter the alliance’s expansion by putting more emphasis on tactical nuclear weapons.

"We have always opposed and will oppose such Nato actions, regarding them as a strategic blunder," he said.

He said Russia might "adjust" its plans to cut the number of troops in the area opposite the Baltic states by 40%, and "outlays for national defence should be boosted".

Russia’s objections are twofold. It opposes Nato plans to move troops close to its boundaries, and it objects to Nato taking over the air defences of the Baltic states.

In 1999, when the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland became the first former members of the communist Warsaw Pact to join Nato, the alliance sought to sugar the pill by promising Russia that it did not intend to keep foreign troops or nuclear weapons on their territory.

However, already there are firm indications that Washington intends to transfer many of the 71,000 troops based in Germany to bases in eastern Europe. American military planning groups have been examining sites in Poland, Romania and Bulgaria as potential Nato bases.

Romania has given Nato a list of sites where it could host US troops, and says it has signed an agreement with the US company Northrop Grumman which the Pentagon often uses to build and run military bases.

A team of military experts from US European Command (USEUCOM) has also visited Bulgaria to inspect the airports of Bezmer and Graf Ignatievo and the testing grounds of Koren and Novo Selo, as possible future US military bases.

Bulgarian vice-foreign minister Ivanov said US bases would be "an important element for the security of the Black Sea region and for Bulgaria in particular" and "would encourage the modernisation" of the Bulgarian army.

The US says its move is part of a strategic shift from large garrisons to small bases that can respond quickly to crises, especially the threat of terrorism.

It says Russian officials had already agreed to Nato bases being set up in Bulgaria and Romania to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But Russia suspects that Washington is eyeing the territory of some of the new Nato members as possible launch pads for projecting US power into the Middle East.

Nato blames Russia for failing to fulfil its pledge to withdraw its troops from the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Moldova.

Russia is particularly sensitive that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, all former Soviet republics, could not only provide a base for Nato troops on the Russian border, but also host Nato air bases.

Nato Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said last week that collective air defence had been part of Nato’s role since its foundation, and that Russia had been informed about the decision to patrol the airspace of the Baltic states. "It’s Nato airspace and Nato airspace has always been patrolled and covered," he said.

But Russia fears these patrols could be used to spy on its territory. "We dislike the deployment of Nato warplanes in the Baltic countries," Zavarzin said.

Moscow’s growing anger at Nato’s eastwards expansion is further enflamed by a spat with Lithuania. On the day after Lithuania joined Nato, Moscow expelled three Lithuanian diplomats, accusing them of spying. The expulsions were a tit-for-tat move after Lithuania expelled three Russian diplomats.

"It’s been no secret Russia has great interests in Lithuania," said Rasa Jukneviciene, a Lithuanian parliamentarian. "Soviet tanks left long ago, but their agents are still here."

De Hoop Scheffer, who is about to visit Moscow, insists that there is no need for tensions.

"I think that Russia has very well understood that Nato has no ulterior motives by air-policing its airspace," he said.

The US ambassador to Nato, Nick Burns, also played down suggestions of a crisis with Russia, and said no decisions on future bases had been made. "We’ve had a year-and-a-half to discuss this with the Russian Federation. I sense no major problem. There is certainly no sense of crisis over this," Burns said.

This seemed confirmed when Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov joined talks at Nato headquarters in Brussels on Friday after another ceremony at which the flags of the new members were raised.

But Nato enlargement may still not be at an end. Three Balkan countries, Albania, Croatia and Macedonia, are preparing for membership, and were present last week as observers.

"When these new countries come in, 40% of our membership will be former communist countries, and they are going to strengthen us militarily," Burns said.

[wholagun]

Why can't Russian understand that its imperial assperations are not gonna materialize any time soon again. Just face the facts, the Balics and fromer Soviet influence countries don't want you in thier corner. By launcing nuckes to destory the Baltics you will cause a bigger **** storm then sending in troops.

Im curious to see what will happen when Russian jets violate Baltic airspace again, will the Belgian F16s shoot them down? Thinking about it, I almost don't wanna find out.

[Commander Cool]

Yes, I'm sure that 4 F-16's flown by the feared Belgian pilots are scaring Russia's 4,500 plane airforce. No doubt Russians are shivering in their boots right now.

I fail to see why NATO feels the need to "protect" the airspace of those countries, especially the Baltic ones. Protect them from who? Who would want to attack them?

If it was up to me I would get the US out of the NATO. Being a NATO member does not benefit American interests in any way.

[cut]

If it was up to me I would get the US out of the NATO. Being a NATO member does not benefit American interests in any way.

depends how much you like peacekeeping, especially with US armed forces streched as they are.

[wholagun]

well in recent times Russia has violated Baltic airspace, so the Belgians sent thier F16s.

NATO allows US to have bases all over Europe and have influence in European politics, so if US left NATO it'd lose alot of its influence.

[cut]

Do the russians have any military bases in kaliningrad? If they wanted to fly fighters there would they be expected to make their way around those countries or seek permission to fly through.

[Commander Cool]

depends how much you like peacekeeping, especially with US armed forces streched as they are.

NATO wasn't created for peacekeeping, that's the UN's job. NATO was created to stop the spread of communism by the USSR. Now that that threat no longer exists, NATO has no purpose.

[cut]

depends how much you like peacekeeping, especially with US armed forces streched as they are.

NATO wasn't created for peacekeeping, that's the UN's job. NATO was created to stop the spread of communism by the USSR. Now that that threat no longer exists, NATO has no purpose.

in that case why is it NATO not the UN peacekeeping in afghanistan?

[Haiw]

well in recent times Russia has violated Baltic airspace, so the Belgians sent thier F16s.

NATO allows US to have bases all over Europe and have influence in European politics, so if US left NATO it'd lose alot of its influence.
And not to forget about Afghanistan....and in the possibility of any attack on the US it would mean you'd have our support as well.

[cut]

Or would have to go through the EU which would be even tougher than the UN woot

[chauncy republicans]

Russia warns Nato of new arms race

IAN MATHER DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT
imather@scotlandonsunday.com


IF LAST week’s ceremony in Washington to welcome seven new members to Nato had been a marriage service there would have been a loud objection from the back of the church.

In no uncertain terms Russia has made plain its view that the new partners should "not lawfully be joined together", and last week defence minister Sergei Ivanov even warned that he might order a build-up of the country’s nuclear defences.
rofl Yeah sure...lol I bet were all shaking in our boots now.

[Commander Cool]

in that case why is it NATO not the UN peacekeeping in afghanistan?
Because NATO is trying to justify its existence. But it is doing something it wasn't created to do.

[wholagun]

Do the russians have any military bases in kaliningrad? If they wanted to fly fighters there would they be expected to make their way around those countries or seek permission to fly through.

need to seek permission first.

[cut]

Russia warns Nato of new arms race

IAN MATHER DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT
imather@scotlandonsunday.com


IF LAST week’s ceremony in Washington to welcome seven new members to Nato had been a marriage service there would have been a loud objection from the back of the church.

In no uncertain terms Russia has made plain its view that the new partners should "not lawfully be joined together", and last week defence minister Sergei Ivanov even warned that he might order a build-up of the country’s nuclear defences.
rofl Yeah sure...lol I bet were all shaking in our boots now.

well if it escelates you will, a few thousand nuclear weapons should always be taken lightly

[cut]

in that case why is it NATO not the UN peacekeeping in afghanistan?
Because NATO is trying to justify its existence. But it is doing something it wasn't created to do.

so disband it? yeah cool that's fine with us, it's in your intrests to keep it. Why do you think GWB was fighting so hard to keep NATO not the EU RRF as the primary tool in the European arsenal?

[-Max2-]

NATO wasn't created for peacekeeping, that's the UN's job. NATO was created to stop the spread of communism by the USSR. Now that that threat no longer exists, NATO has no purpose.

NATO is the backborne of transatlantic relationship, so both the US and Europe need NATO. And NATO has a new role since the end of the Cold War, and could became the new global "policeman" after the multiple failures of the UN (Somalia, Rwanda, Kosovo, etc)...

Its what the US governement want in any case...


Yes, I'm sure that 4 F-16's flown by the feared Belgian pilots are scaring Russia's 4,500 plane airforce. No doubt Russians are shivering in their boots right now.



Its more than enough to kick Russian Air Force's ass in the region... :lol:


I fail to see why NATO feels the need to "protect" the airspace of those countries, especially the Baltic ones. Protect them from who? Who would want to attack them?



These four F-16s are not there to protect the airspace of the Baltics from a possible Russian attack, but to stop the violations of their airspaces by Russian planes (civilian planes most of the time). If NATO really wanted to defend these countries, it woudnt have send four F-16s but four squadrons of F-16s... ;)

[Ichhabe]

If it was up to me I would get the US out of the NATO. Being a NATO member does not benefit American interests in any way.

If it was up to you??? Who the hell has been working to get those new 7 countries in to the organization?

If you had the power and the stomach to then wisk your way out of NATO: Then I would have made a coupe in my country, decleared a war on you, and attacked 5 minutes later. :bash:

[chauncy republicans]

Russia warns Nato of new arms race

IAN MATHER DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT
imather@scotlandonsunday.com


IF LAST week’s ceremony in Washington to welcome seven new members to Nato had been a marriage service there would have been a loud objection from the back of the church.

In no uncertain terms Russia has made plain its view that the new partners should "not lawfully be joined together", and last week defence minister Sergei Ivanov even warned that he might order a build-up of the country’s nuclear defences.
rofl Yeah sure...lol I bet were all shaking in our boots now.

well if it escelates you will, a few thousand nuclear weapons should always be taken lightly
I doubt they would even have the economic power to produce weapons on a large scale...and if they did produce thousands,(nukes) the whole Russian infrastructure would collapse. This same behavior broke Russia in the "Cold War" and I doubt it would be any different this time around, except for the fact that Russia had a pretty prosporous economy up until the late 50's(I think). NATO would have stomped all over the Warsaw pact during the cold war, now NATO is 40% stronger and the Warsaw Pact doesnt excist anymore. So no... I doubt many will take this silly little threat seriously. Russia is no longer a "superpower" by any means at all.

[cut]

but they still have the same weapons just like in the US the few nukes have been produced since the end of the cold war.

[Commander Cool]

NATO would have stomped all over the Warsaw pact during the cold war,
You're WAY off. The combined 16 countries of NATO weren't able to match the Soviet Union's incredible industrial capacity. Soviet strategy to win the war was to produce tanks and aircraft faster than NATO could and beat them by sheer numbers. NATO would've been crushed.

And NATO is definitely not stronger today, in fact all NATO members have reduced their militaries significantly compared to how they were 20 years ago. The US alone retired and decomissioned more equipment during the 90's than the entire western Europe has.

[chauncy republicans]

Good point Cut, but do you know anything about maintaining a nuke? :) (kind of random thing to know i quess) I know nothing at all about it, but I'm wondering how much it costs and what kind of tools or equipment is needed.
If they are very costly to maintain I doubt the Russian missles would be much threat, seeing they dont have very much money to work with. If they are all properly maintained...well...I dont really know, but I think then we should be a little worried.[/i]

[cut]

Good point Cut, but do you know anything about maintaining a nuke? :) (kind of random thing to know i quess) I know nothing at all about it, but I'm wondering how much it costs and what kind of tools or equipment is needed.
If they are very costly to maintain I doubt the Russian missles would be much threat, seeing they dont have very much money to work with. If they are all properly maintained...well...I dont really know, but I think then we should be a little worried.[/i]

the russians are not as poor as you seem to think, and even if they were they would never let all of their nuclear weapon decay to the point where they can't be used.

[chauncy republicans]

NATO would have stomped all over the Warsaw pact during the cold war,
You're WAY off. The combined 16 countries of NATO weren't able to match the Soviet Union's incredible industrial capacity. Soviet strategy to win the war was to produce tanks and aircraft faster than NATO could and beat them by sheer numbers. NATO would've been crushed.

And NATO is definitely not stronger today, in fact all NATO members have reduced their militaries significantly compared to how they were 20 years ago. The US alone retired and decomissioned more equipment during the 90's than the entire western Europe has.
For one, Your wrong! "NATO would have stomped all over the Warsaw pact during the cold war." Would you like me to post fact and fancy proving I'm correct??
BTW a smaller more mobile force can have a lot of advantages over a monstrous army. Maybe you should have a chat with **** Cheney and Colin Powell, since they are the ones that scaled down our forces they should be able to give you plenty of reasons why a mobile force is preferred over a huge, massive, slow, and sloppy army.

[chauncy republicans]

Good point Cut, but do you know anything about maintaining a nuke? :) (kind of random thing to know i quess) I know nothing at all about it, but I'm wondering how much it costs and what kind of tools or equipment is needed.
If they are very costly to maintain I doubt the Russian missles would be much threat, seeing they dont have very much money to work with. If they are all properly maintained...well...I dont really know, but I think then we should be a little worried.[/i]

the russians are not as poor as you seem to think, and even if they were they would never let all of their nuclear weapon decay to the point where they can't be used.
I agree with you there, but I still dont take the threat seriously though.

[Commander Cool]

The WP could build equipment 3 times faster than NATO could. That means that there is no way NATO could've won any conventional war in Europe against the WP. There is a very detailed discussino about this here:

http://acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1195

And Clinton was responsible for scaling down the US's military, not the current administration.

[cut]

you need a account to view that site

[chauncy republicans]

The WP could build equipment 3 times faster than NATO could. That means that there is no way NATO could've won any conventional war in Europe against the WP. There is a very detailed discussino about this here:

http://acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1195

And Clinton was responsible for scaling down the US's military, not the current administration.
O.K with what $$ would the pact produce it's equipment? Russia was about broke and cutting back on the military's budget by the late 50's!
OH and I never said the "current" administration now did I? Cheney and Powell have been around a lot longer that you think.
I will have to locate some of my documents and I will post them for you.

[Commander Cool]

O.K with what $$ would the pact produce it's equipment?
You're not thinking like a Soviet. If it came to war, do you really think the Soviets would've paid their workers? Hell no... They would've been forced to work for free, just like during WWII.


Russia was about broke and cutting back on the military's budget by the late 50's!
Then how did they manage to have a quantitative superiority over the NATO during the entire cold war?

[cut]

I think we need hist2004 to come and sort out the "facts" here

[chauncy republicans]

I think we need hist2004 to come and sort out the "facts" hereI will be doing that! Give me a couple hours.

[martinexsquaddie]

having clambered around bmp-2 and t-72 late 80s versions anyway
have to say they were really very poor pieces of kit so having 3 times the worth of ****e kit being controlled by poorly trained conscripts does not give you 3 times the advantage :(
The big problem is the entire Eastern Europe had a taste of rule form Moscow and now wants nothing to do with them :D
the bear is angry but theres nothing it could do anymore.
THE COLD WAR IS OVER YOU LOST rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

[Commander Cool]

having clambered around bmp-2 and t-72 late 80s versions anyway
Where? When did you have access to Soviet equipment?


controlled by poorly trained conscripts
Even when you remove all the conscripts out of the equation, you are still left with an army which is larger than NATO's. And they were trained more intensely.


The big problem is the entire Eastern Europe had a taste of rule form Moscow and now wants nothing to do with them
Yugoslavia didn't. And Belarus still loves Moscow. Ukraine appears to be confused. As for the Baltics and Poland, yeah they've always hated Russians.


THE COLD WAR IS OVER YOU LOST
Huh? I'm American.

[Commander Cool]

The fact is that the WP had an enormous quantitative advantage over NATOin all areas, and a qualitative/technological advantage in some areas. Let's get into the specifics:

Air to surface role: the Su-17 and MiG-27 were equipped with solid guided weapons - including guided ASMs and LGBs - long before Tornado IDS/GR.Mk.1s, just for example, and certainly much earlier than any Harriers, or Alpha Jets, or A-10s. The use of AGM-65s was still limited in the NATO even in late-1980s, when the 16th Soviet Air Force already had the Kh-25 and Kh-29 in widespread use in all its attack units (remember that even RAF Tornado GR.Mk.1s haven't got LGBs until 1991).

Furthermore, the NATO had one or two deicated SEAD-assets (F-4Gs at Spangdahlem, with eventual another wing arriving from the CONUS), with all the other units being completely unable to use any kind of ARMs. The Soviets, to contrary, had also the Kh-28/28M, Kh-25MP (which wasn't even detected by the NATO), and later also Kh-58 (from 1986 or os) in widespread use in all of their units as well. All of these were also supported by a range of efficient ECM-pods.

Consequently, one must conclude that Soviet aircraft were equipped with a wider range of guided weapons, than NATO air forces, and were tactically far more flexible. Actually, it was so, that while the NATO boasted with the "technological superiority" of its air assets, the Soviets indeed possesed the technological superiority, as the NATO would have to fight an eventual air-to-ground war in the 1980s with dumb bombs, CBUs, and some support by more sophisticated assets, while the War Pact would do that with full use of stand-off guided missiles and ECM-pods.

The situation in the air-to-air arena, gentlemen, was even poorer - for the NATO. While the War Pact fielded over 1.500 MiG-23M/MFs by early 1980s, all of which were equipped with R-23 MRAAM, the NATO depended for such capability to one wing + one group of Sparrow-equipped F-15A/Cs, three squadrons of RAF Phantoms, and three of CAF Hornets. Poor odds, to say at least, and the situation has not improved subsequently, as the Soviets then introduced over 600 MiG-29s - equipped with the R-27 - into the theatre, while the first AMRAAMs reached IOC only in 1991. Thus, even if the R-23s and R-27s are of doubious quality, to say at least, in the BVR antenna the War Pact had such an advantage, that I must highly doubt if the NATO could seriously challenge this even with "much better training".

Besides, who said that the training and readiness were really "better"? And, were they really so much more realistic? Or based on wrong assesments? The NATO pilots trained to fight against pairs, fours, six or eight "enemy" aircraft. But, the War Pact would come in full-regiment-sized formations, and their regiments consisted of 35+ aircraft, not 20+ as usually described. Every Western pilot will always confirm, that two or four Floggers are no problem; but - especially those which confronted MiG-23s in air combat - will always confirm that in large numbers, they were VERY dangerous. And, gentlemen, while NATO pilots went home at Friday afternoon, Soviets, Germans, Poles, and Czechs sat in their ready rooms, and had very specific orders to be able to put all their aircraft into the air within 30 minutes, even on the weekend.

Exactly the last aspect is one which really makes me feeling cold when thinking about it. Namely, the Soviets (and the others) would indeed come over in very massive formations. For them, the air battlefield over Germany was organized in three fronts, each of which had very clear order for the first day of the war: create a main "safe corridor", some 40-150km wide, over 160km into the depth of the enemy air space. If some of you now start to smile, mind this: the Soviets studied extensively the air war over Germany in WWII, and the US tactics from North Vietnam, and comined some elements of these for their purposes. For the creation of each such corridors, formations of following composition would be created:
- EW-support An-12 (3-4 examples);
- SEAD-strike Su-24Ms and MiG-25BMs, supported by Su-24MPs and Tu-16RMs, while Tu-16PPs would create chaff corridors (up to 20 aircraft in total);
- 50 Tu-22M and Tu-16 bombers, equipped with AS-4 and AS-6 ASMs, respectivelly (no, these would not be hunting NATO convoys in Atlantic);
- 50 Su-24Ms;
- 100 MiG-29s;
- 100 MiG-23s;
- up to 50 Su-27s and MiG-31s.

That's 350 aircraft in one main strike, and each front was to create three sub-corridors at once, combining - depending on which front are we talking about - up to 1.200 aircraft (that's if we asses the situation even with only 75% readiness) per single operation, or up to 3.400 aircraft at once.

Three such operations were to be flown each day on each front, and I still haven't started to count true tactical assets, like MiG-27s, Su-17s, and Su-25s, which would attack single targets (foremost NATO airfields and depots) in wake of such strike packages.

I really don't know how one could stop such onslaughts: the Germany haven't managed (even if - periodically - inflicting heavy losses), and the Vietnamese either. Who would? The NATO? At which price and with which success? To me it appears that the NATO would either be so successfull, that after one week of the war it would spend all its reserves of AAMs, or it would be overrun in the air....

Source: http://acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1195

[-Max2-]

Warsaw Pact armies were poorly trained compared to NATO armies. I doubt that a Soviet, Bulgarian or Hungarian tanker fired as much shells than a American, German or British tanker in a year during the Cold War. And WP armies had serviceability problems with most of their equipments...

Anyway, a conventional war between NATO and the WP was impossible. With thousands of nukes on each side, no one would have take the risk to start a war...

[Commander Cool]

Read what I wrote. Soviets/WP soldiers trained harder, longer, and more intensely than in western Europe. Today, your average Bulgarian or Romanian is probably not that well trained due to lack of money, but the situation was different during the Cold War.

[-Max2-]

Read what I wrote

There are many different versions about the level of WP armies during the Cold War. This one is just another theory and i do not believe in it...

Dont forget that the Afghans beat the mighty Red Army with AK-47s, Lee-Enfield bolt action rifles, RPG-7s and a few Stingers...

[Commander Cool]

What specifically don't you believe about this analysis? If you can refute any of the points in my post, then by all means do so.

As for Afghanistan, the Red Army lost 14,000 men and the Afghans lost about 250,000. I'd say that is a pretty good performance for the Soviets. And the main reason the Afghans could do anything at all was because of help from the US.

[wholagun]

if there ever was a war, im can bet you that Poland would've ditched Moscow and gone with the west. We were itching to get rid of the Moscow, take it from me the WP soldiers were not that well trained. My dad tells me when he was in the army they would get drunk all the time, and the officers treated them like ****, the idea being the worse your treated the better soldier you'd be. I can't speak for any other WP country but my dad said that in Poland no one wanted to fight and die for Moscow. Why the hell would you want to fight and die for someone who oppresses you?

[MaDuce]

Russia already has enough nukes to destroy the entire marterial mass of the earth why they would need more is a mystery. It would jsut cost them alota money....Whitch I guess isnt that much of a problem when the upkeeps to much you can always sell tem to Al Qudea, Iran, or Bill Gates right.

[-Max2-]

Commander Cool:

What about USAF ? There were hundreds of F/EF-111s, F-15s, F-16s, A-10s with a modern weaponry based in Europe.

And Tornado IDS/ADV, Jaguars, Mirages, F-5s, F-4s, F-16s, F-104s, A-7s, Harriers from others NATO air forces.

NATO had also hundreds of SAM and AAA systems like Patriot, Hawk, Roland, Stinger, Mistral, Rapier, Chaparral, Gepard AA tanks, M163 AA tanks. That wouldnt have been easy for WP air forces with their poorly trained pilots...

WP had few AEW aircrafts and tankers as well like E-3 and KC-135.

And i could go on...

[DPGLAW]

It's not like anyone should be worried....As if any of Russia's nukes, or any other weapons for that matter, work.... They don't even have the fuel to launch a weapon..and if you look at their alst missle test it is obvious that they counldn't even hit the broad side of a barn with one of their missle...what are they going to do, throw them at us.

[RuSoKaR]

Underestimation of your enemy will increase your chances to be defeated by him. ;)

[Celareon]

People, it doesnt matter one bit which army was better. The warsaw pact never would have had the chance to carry out its massive crushing attack against western europe. The minute the soviet tanks crossed into germany, the little red button would have been pushed and we would have all gone bye-bye. The fighters, bombers, tanks and weapons were there to offset one another, personally when nuclear weapons are involved i fail to see the use of any conventional forces whatsoever.

Commander cool, are you sure you'r not confusing your location with moscow, not michigan p-)

[GazB]

[GazB]