This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
U.S. Vs. Russia – Military Might
Via ValueWalk's Christopher Moore,
Which of the two superpowers has the greater military provisions?
US or Russia?
The historical relationship between the United States and Russia can hardly be described as rosey. The two countries are inextricably linked due to the Cold War era, with the world’s two modern superpowers having enjoyed an extremely suspicious relationship with one another for decades during the 20th century.
This suspicion led to the infamous Cuban Missile Crisis. What is perhaps not so infamous about this particularly tense situation is that the world was nearly blown to smithereens. It was only due to decisions taken on board a Russian nuclear submarine by Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov that full-scale of nuclear war was averted. This was acknowledged in 2002 by former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who stated that the world has been much closer to nuclear war than is often realized.
Such history is rather chilling, particularly when one considers that the diplomatic relationship between the two nations has diminished recently. With tensions in the Ukraine, and some underlying economic and political reasons for the United States and Russia to be in military opposition, there is once again the tension between the two countries.
In March, 2014, Forbes gave seven reasons why the United States will never go to war with Russia. One would certainly hope that this is the case, but it is still interesting and informative to compare the relative military might of the world’s most powerful nations.
Manpower
The United States has more than double the population of Russia, and so it is not hugely surprisingly that it has a significant edge in available manpower. The United States has over 145 million people who could theoretically serve in the armed forces, whereas Russia has under 70 million by comparison. Of course, the notion of a draft would be hugely controversial in either nation, and this figure only really is relevant in theory.
Active Military Personnel
Of more relevance is the current levels of active military personnel in the two nations. The US certainly has a much larger armed forces to draw upon than Russia, with nearly 1.5 million military personnel of various denominations currently active in the United States. Russia actually has a higher level of military personnel per capita, but the total number of 766,000 is significantly less than the United States.
Aircraft
Movies such as Top Gun have created a collective imdge in our mind which suggests that the United States is associated with military might in the air. And this is certainly reflected in figures related to military aircraft. Of course, many of the world’s largest defense contractors operate out of the United States, and companies such as Lockheed Martin Corporation ensure that the US is pretty spectacularly endowed with military aircraft.
According to recent figures, the United States has over 13,500 military aircraft ready to be deployed at any given time. The Russian air force is paltry by comparison, with the Eastern European nation not even in possession of 4,000 active military aircraft.
Helicopters
The aerial supremacy of the United States is also underlined with regard to helicopters. Again, military history intrinsically associates this vehicle with the United States, as helicopters are indelibly linked with critical conflicts for the US in the 20th century such as Vietnam and Korea.
It comes as no surprise then that the United States has a huge amount of active military helicopters; just over 6,000 in total. This is clearly not an area which has been prioritied by Russia, with the former Eastern Bloc nation having less than 1,000 active military helicopters by comparison.
Tank Strength
When one pictures Soviet tanks rolling into Afghanistan, for example, the tank strength of the former Eastern Bloc Russia would be presumed to be significant. And this impression garnered from history would not turn out to be inaccurate.
Russia currently has 15,500 active tanks available for military service, and this is significantly more than the United States. The US tank provision is not as overshadowed as the Russian military is in some departments, but nonetheless the United States currently has around 8,325 tanks as part of its military capabilities. In terms of ground battles, Russia would appear to have the edge.
Submarines
As mentioned previously, it was a Russian nuclear submarine which almost prompted complete disaster during the Cuban Missile Srisis. But both the United States and Russia are associated with underwater technology, and as such there is no significant difference between the two in this department. The United States has slightly more deployable submarines, 72 as opposed to 63, but one cannot say that there is a significant difference in military strength in this department.
Defense Spending
Given that President Obama famously signed off a $1 trillion defense budget, and the notion of the military-industrial complex was coined by a 1961 speech by Dwight Eisenhower, it wouldn’t come as a huge surprised if US defense spending was significantly higher than Russia. And, of course, this turns out to be the case, with admitted defense spending in the United States currently equal to around $612 million. This dwarfs any nation on the planet, and Russia is no exception, with the Eastern European powerhouse spending $76 million annually on its defense.
Nuclear Weapons
Both countries have been reducing their stockpiles of nuclear weapons under various disarmament and non-proliferation treaties. But the bulk of nuclear weapons which remain in the two nations is a constant reminder of the potential stakes involved. This is one department in which Russia has the edge over the United States, with the Eastern European nation currently boasting around 8,000 active nuclear warheads. This is reckoned to be nearly 1,000 more than the United States.
In an estimation published in 2012, graphic designer Maximilian Bode stated that the estimated tonnage of nuclear warheads in the world today would easily be enough to obliterate the entire human population. Given that the United States and Russia is responsible for 75 percent of these nuclear weapons, we must hope that diplomatic relations between the two nations thaw somewhat in the near future.
»
- 43874 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
obama vs putin..... LOL!!!!!
magilla gorilla and obama are the same...first few sentences....same reults
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magilla_Gorilla
Vietnames farmers could beat the usa. So what does It al mean.
Especially when considering that it won't be Russia versus the US. It will be the Sino-Russian alliance against what is left of NATO. NATO hasn't a chance in hell of beating the Sino-Russians.
American Sniper.
Shooting women & children is fun. 'Murica.
Those women and children were trying to kill Marines.
My TeeVee said so........
mr president, we cannot afford...a doomsday gap!
<<< Seahawks
<<< Patriots
<<<<<Not watching
<<<<<Watching
Who wrote this BULLSHIT?
Russia spends just 76 million on defence? Yet has 8,000 nuclear warhead and 63 nuclear submarines? 15,500 tanks?
Wildly inaccurate.
Also the U.S. defence budget is just 612 million? Really? HORSESHIT!! Several orders of magnitude wrong.
This article is pure bullshit. It's pro-American fantasyland.
Tell me, how did the might of the U.S. military fare in Iraq? Or Afghanistan? Vietnam? Korea? Cambodia? Cuba?
The U.S. hasn't won a major war in 70 years. American invades plenty of countries but always fails to defeat anyone decisively then runs away tail between their legs.
Come on, Americans don't even have the guts to stand up to their own politicians and all the world knows it. All the gear and no idea.
Granada!!!
I would worry less about who has what and more about who seems ready to use it first not including nuclear tipped stealch cruise missiles:
Russian Tu-95 Bomber Intercepted over English Channel Was Carrying Nuclear Weapon
Yes, I read the reports on this one too, it appears that the time of the Old English Wealthy Elite is coming to an end....
(Just like the bible predicted...)
Yes, they do have entirely far too much money....
http://cdn.overclock.net/2/25/25cefbf8_5yq7Zdt.jpeg
Number plate FI IRAK -> nearly as good as Clarkson's H 982 FKL on his Porsche in Argentina.....
Number plate FI IRAK -> nearly as good as Clarkson's H 982 FKL on his Porsche in Argentina.....
pre-coffee double-click - Apologies!
The U.S. military won nearly every single significant military engagement in every one of those countries you listed above. Unfortunatley, winning battles and winning wars are two separate things. The military industrial complex doesnt make money off of quick victories.
The question the article doesn't ask is where America's troops and vehicles are located. What good are conventional forces if they are spread out across the entire frakking world?
We're like the players in Risk who keep attacking until they have one troop left on every space and then get wiped out after someone builds even a minor defensive border.
meh...
Wildly innaccurate...
or just a typo - and meant Billion, not Million.
Chill.
It's not about "winning wars".
A swift victory means less profit for these boys: http://csis.org/
And perhaps even more important.. it would mean less crushing debt on the western populations.
18 trillion and counting....
But yeah... it's a bit of a BS story.. Because it's not a pissing match. No one wins a nuclear war. No one.
The Russia-China axis does win a nuclear war - for the following reasons:
1. Their tactical nukes are far more sophisticated and ready for use.
2. They are far more willing to resort to first use of tactical nukes.
3. They have planned for a war with the U.S. and have a strategy to win it with tactical nukes.
4. The U.S. isn't going to launch its strategic nukes in response to Russia-China's tactical nukes used in a war theater that is not on U.S. territory. Any war between the U.S. and Russia-China will not take place on U.S. territory - period.
5. Coupled with economic and financial retaliation against the West, a tactical nuclear war will escalate to the point where, out of fear of a total strategic nuclear conflagration, the world's peoples will storm their governments and threaten to bring a total global collapse of order - thus forcing a halt to hostilities, most likely brokered by the UN, and this halt to hostilities will freeze conditions as they were - with Russia-China in the ascendancy militarily and economically. The U.S. will thus "lose the war", being forced to take its significant losses with no chance to recover itself as a global hegemon.
A limited nuclear war is possible, with a winning side, if hostilities are halted (by force, by the world's peoples) before rage and insanity move one side or the other to launch any of their strategic nuclear missiles. Yes - it's plenty risky. But Russia-China won't start such a war. The U.S. side will start it with conventional weapons and economic/financial weapons. It has already begun, in fact. Russia-China will finish it, with tactical nukes and with wideranging, potent financial/economic retaliation.
In such a scenario, the U.S. is at a serious, multidimensional disadvantage. It lags far behind in the tactical nuclear ability, it must conduct the war in a distant theater, making its supply lines distinctly vulnerable, it's military is already far over-stretched, it's economic and financial situation is deeply precarious, its peoples are already war-weary, its military platforms are deeply vulnerable to a wide range of asymmetric weapons systems developed for just such a war, and it has few options short of strategic nuclear committment to deal with Russia-China's asymmetric playing-field levelers.
The use of Tactical Nukes was on my mind as well. I agree with your assessment. I think another possibility is the use of Bio Weapons and that could happen right here on American soil. I read the book, "Demon in the Freezer" (you can read it for free in PDF, last time I checked). Written by a scientist who worked in the area. Absolutely horrifying, especially the weaponization of Smallpox and other viruses that are virtually inviolable. The Russians produced this in huge amounts, like railroad tankers full. It only takes the ingestion of two or three individual viruses for you to die a seriously ugly death and they've got whole trains full of these viruses and very, very effective missile systems to deliver and disburse them.
The intent is NEVER to win anything. I thought the caliber of zerohedge posters was better than this.
The intent is to conduct war because war consumes goods and services which must be paid by the taxpayer. The contractors that supply the war effort in turn bribe our traitorous congressman to foster and condone the perpetual war. The clues couldn't be easier to read. The clues aren't written in braille.
Aside from all of the above the question about who is stronger is moot. Neither country can afford a war. Of course we'll do it anyway because American citizens are gullible, naive and easily conned.
Well it won in Haiti....still there years after the so called earthquake :)
The all-inclusive, multicultural U.S. military lead by "politicians" with no military sense would be steamrolled by the Russian bear. The U.S. military is only marginally effective when fighting the poorest people on earth in the poorest regions on earth.
Americans aren't trying to win wars. They just provoke conflict to keep everyone else weak (hence the 5 billion USD investment in the Ukraine Junta).
+1 for the Dr. Strangelove reference
The US didn't win WWII either. Declaring that it did was propoganda. Russia won WWII. The US waited until the very end to come in and help mop up what was left of Germany after they lost most of their chess pieces in Russia.
The US did legitimately defeat Japan, though. However, that was like stepping on a few ants. Japan had no real chance of winning.
To say that Russia won WW2 alone is russian propaganda. Without the two fronts the war would have been different.
And the sheer number of american weaponry and planes shipped to Russia during WW2 helped the russian effort enormously.
Ironlead
you have been misled by hubristic US propaganda.
The USSR matched or exceeded US production in tanks, artillery, and (ground) attack aircraft. The tanks of the USSR were far superior to the US-made ones. US weaponry was of little value and use on the Eastern front. Russia also had superior artillery and infantry weaponry.
Germany armies already faced total defeat (at Stalingrad and Kursk), well before any meaningful US "participation".
Germany was already obliged to station (mostly 2nd rate) troops in the West to repel the British and for occupation purposes. The additional troops assigned to also repel the US would have made no difference on the Eastern front against the USSR.
Without USA participation in Europe, the war would have been "different" (without the militarily negligible terror bombing of German cities), but the outcome of total defeat would have been the same for Germany.
Without USSR participation, Germany would not have been defeated.
the production statistics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
No. TruthInSunshine started with "American Sniper"", so we are talking about the movie. In the movie, a woman and boy attempt to toss a bomb at Marines. Kyle takes them out. That was his job. TIS then says "killing women and children is fun. Murca." In the MOVIE, Kyle shows great remorse at having to do this. It is, to him, NOT FUN. But weren't we invading? Yes. Should we have been there? No. Nobody on this site has done more to expose the hoax that was 9/11 (and others) than we have. The culprits here are the Bushes, Cheney, Saudi funders, dancing Israelis, Rothschilds, MSM, etc., etc., etc. The Kyles of the world mean well but don't see the big picture YET. Maybe he would have, given enough time.
TeamDepends
"that was his job" =
"just following orders" =
insufficient excuse
Your right, they were trying to kill Marines based on a invasion. A lie if you will.
those Marines were (are) invading their country as aggressors ...so those women and children should be regarded as patriots of their nation(s) and the Kyles of this world as fascist butchers.
On the ground you keep your people alive.
Have always wondered what i'd do in a situation of someone turning up at my PAD to do me harm!YEAH.
That depends.
Are you running around trying to convert others to your beliefs by threat of be heading?
Iraqis weren't doing that. You're thinking of Johnny McCain's friends in ISIS.
Those women were invading Greater Amerika.
women and children are not allowed to fight back against an invasive force?
"Those women and children were trying to kill Marines."
You expect any different when you roll into another country and start fucking the place up like a bull in a china shop?
What do you expect your neighborhood To do in a "Red Dawn" scenario?
Hey, doncha know snipers are cowards? Just ask multimillionaire Michael Moore
doesn't really matter if they are cowardly or brave.
if you're in another country without just cause and killing people, you're a murderer
i hope the us forces are kicked out and soon, there has been too much unneccessary bloodshed.
Depends on the meaning of unnecessary........
So how do the soldiers know the truth when the US govt lies to them ?
Chelsea Manning
it's really pretty simple: if you're fighting a war in a country such as iraq or afghanistan, that hasn't attacked the usa, then you're the aggressor.
if you're going to engage an enemy where people are going to die, you'd better be DAMN sure there's a good reason to be doing it - some guy in a uniform telling you so is not a good reason.
there's no reason to sell your conscience to uncle sam and become a hired killer - i would sooner be a bum on the street than to enlist in the us military.
yes, they are being lied to, but, many just don't care, don't really want to be aware of what they are doing.
some just want to go to an exotic place and kill some brown people, and think that the vast technology and resources of the us empire will protect them.
and maybe it will - but it won't protect them from themselves. far more us soldiers are dying from suicide than on the field of battle. not just the trauma of war, but the realization of what they have done to others, plagues them.
many in the military who realize what a dark path they are on, realize too late:
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2013/03/19/a-letter-to-george-w-bush-and-di...
ISIS-Russian sounds more realistic to me.
similar to the farmers in Afghnistan that kicked Russia's ass, right cumrade?
you fucking troll fuck
fuck you
harry...., time for your medicine......
You should have USA tattooed on your forehead so we can avoid nutters like you in public...
And last time I checked, the US has also gotten it's ass kicked in 'Stan... Fucking idiot...
Keyser, you should be wearing your lovers putin's pictur so that we all can pinpoint you as a spy in public, right cumrade?
this fucking stite is nothng but A Russian banner waiving piece of shit,,,
here lets read about the brilliance of Russia, where the Government let these people get exposed because Russia did wnt the world to know how fucking clueless it is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYmGCIg9O6Y
Speaking of trolls,...
Who pays you to comment here?
I post on my own time "nuke troll"
Anyone who advocates nukes is the fucktard.
Jimmy but advocating the use of torpedos is a beneficient gesture? you fucking vacant crainum shit dick
you must be in the long line of folks here just waiting to suck Putin's dick.
So you are sucking Obama's? Michelle's? McCain's? Netanyahu's?
So you are sucking Obama's? Michelle's? McCain's? Netanyahu's?
As long as Russia/China is right behind them logistically yep.. We did not lose 55K KIA to sharpened rice spoons and angry mamasans..
Ok, maybe we did then.. logistics, oh never mind arguing with idiots..
The US politicians were on the side of the Vietnamese farmers,if they would have let the military fight the war it would have been over quickly.
Magilla Gorilla (voiced by Allan Melvin[2]) is a gorilla who spends his time languishing in the front display window of Melvin Peebles' pet shop, eating bananas and being a drain on the businessman's finances. Peebles (voiced by Howard Morris and later by Don Messick) marked down Magilla's price considerably, but Magilla was invariably only purchased for a short time, typically by some thieves who needed a gorilla to break into a bank or by an advertising agency looking for a mascot for their new product. The customers always ended up returning Magilla, forcing Peebles to refund their money. Magilla often ended episodes with his catchphrase "We'll try again next week."
Like many of Hanna-Barbera's animal characters, Magilla Gorilla was dressed in human accessories, sporting a bow tie, shorts held up by suspenders, and an undersized derby hat.[2]
Well, Barry is more flexible now, so there's that.
true. he can bend over and grab his ankles for quite a while.
And Vlad won't be expecting the Sphincter Of Justice.
And if Russia "wins" we won't have to bother with any more expensive and corrupt elections.
Just have to get used to 'Vlad the Terrible', likely followed by 'Son of Vlad'.
The war after next will be fought with sticks and stones - assuming anyone is left after the next one.
No you are wrong millions of citizens in one country vs millions of citizens in another, with no ability to disobey propaganda. Obama and Putin probably meet in the same freemasonic lodge
Yes, the same entities are backing both sides. So again, no matter who wins or loses a damn good buck will be made, agenda advanced and the masse's numbers seriously down graded all the while they get herded.....unless some nukes are let off; but heh having complete contol over humanity is always a gamble in the nuclear age..
Vlad is ready, willing and able to Judo flip to the mat any man* publicly stating that the Russian military is lacking, either in terms of material readiness or vodka reserves.
_________________________
*as long as the man is docile and compliant, and shorter than his own diminutive form.
Russia hasn't been throwing it's weight around, around the world like the US has. It has not invested it's resources in force projection like the US, but in defensive technologies. As Russia is not about to start a war with the US or Nato, for such a non-nuclear war to start between them, US/Nato will have to bring it to Russia. And that's the rock they'll perish on. They wouldn't have a prayer against Russia on it's home ground. Without air superiority, Nato would be crushed.
Yes, defensive technologies like early warning systems to detetct incoming missile launches. That fail spectacularly.
Yes, defensive technologies like early warning systems to detect incoming missile launches. That fail spectacularly.
Your ignorance is laughable . defense missile systems is where usa failed . get some facts on your face .
Yep. Russia did not invest in force projection or protective alliances with allies either. Nor did Russia invest in important infrastructure. They were using US computers and credit cards as simple examples.
Russia will hole up within their borders and NATO missiles all along it's western borders. Then the covert internal war really heats up. This has been predictable.
Who is always backing up and who is moving forward.
never confuse movement with progress.
...chicken legged liar in chief fudgepacker successfully destroying our country while Putin strengthens Russia... go figure..
Putin has more superbowl rings than Obama, for sure.
Putin & Reggie Love (Body Man) as Obama's stand-in, in steel death cage match.
Not Barry but the Wookie could whip Putin any day.
The relaions with Russia were very good until the Bolshviks took over and formed the USSR. Russia was the first to fall to the communists.
Can some adults make the distinction?
Let's suppose the Kiev Junta is soon crushed. Will reasonable folks hold all Ukrainain peoples be held responsible for the genocide taking place? I hope not, but one never knows.
The US defense spending is $612 million and Russian is $76 million, eh?
That'll buy a couple of toasters...
Yeah, and look at the number of Military bases the U.S.A. has compared to Russia. See the reason for the budgetary differences? Our military is spread way to thin, politicized, and pussified to the point of near uselessness. The Russians know about suffering and are willing to make sacrifices if necessary; the U.S.A., LOLOL.......not so much......
Yeah, but the U.S. has a whole generation of young men raised on video games like Call of duty and Battlefield, so they are already hardened to the realities of war.
million, billion... what's the difference?
Now compare the cost , like tanks, missiles, planes, etc. Russia pays much less in dollar terms than US. So budget in dollars is not fair comparison
So convert the dollar numbers into rubles, it's bigger. I know maff.
U.S. defense dollars go to paying the volunteer army for starters.
There is a reason Iran has not been attacked....batteries of Russian Onyx and Sunburn missiles, more accurate, faster, more range, larger payload than the aging cruise missiles the US/NATO fields. The US/NATO would not like seeing a couple of carrier groups sunk in the first hour of hostilities....Same applies to the ever absent F-35 as shooting practice for the superior SU-30s and 35s, Russian interceptors as strickly fighter aircraft not some sort of hybrid that fails at being tops at anything, giving off such a huge heat signature that any decent radar could detect the plane. These numbers and facts mean nothing if everything is reduced to radioactive dust....
Which of the two superpowers has the greater military provisions?
It won't matter as any war will quickly go nuclear. No one wins a nuclear war.
Kennedy's military chiefs wanted him to drop nuclear weapons on the USSR saying that US casualties would be only about 40 million. Kennedy thought they were insane.
Yeah, Kennedy, whatever happened to him?
JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man's Trickhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM
"Kennedy's military chiefs wanted him to drop nuclear weapons on the USSR saying that US casualties would be only about 40 million."
Sure 40 million. Try about 7 Billion today. You might not die right away from the nuclear war. But your time will be cut real short, when you don't know how to grow food in radioactive ground, when the nuclear reactors all over the world melt down because the EMP's knocked out the electrical infrastructure and they all go critical and melt. You can't get to the smallest corner of the world to begin to survive if nuclear war happens. Live in an underground bunker? Can you live in a hole for 10,000 years?
Been mentioning the approximately 400 latent dirty nukes on the planet for a while.
Might not even take nuclear war for those to go bad, societal breakdown could easily do it if the guys running them stop getting paid or can't get to work.
400 plus Fukushimas would definitely be a bit of a problem, to say the least.
Worse than Fukushima. There would be no ice walls...
For the most part, I've given up on trying to convince the semi-literate mouthbreathing morons who seem to represent 95% of the USSA population that a war with Russia is a very bad idea.
I usually just say something smartassed like "Oh, you must WANT to destroy the planet and kill your entire family!"
Then I know to quickly walk away before they're too tempted to start swinging punches at me.
This guy has figured it out.
http://eventhorizonchronicle.blogspot.com/
Yeah, I think this is a point that keeps getting glossed over because it interferes with the whole let's make war with Russia propaganda.
Our military is huge because we have a bunch of insane neocon/neolibs working for souless multinationals launching amoral wars against brown people that live on top of natural resources.
All Russia needed to do once they gave up on foreign activities was keep their nuke stockpile technologically up to date at a moderate level (they have, and we paid them for about 30K old nuke warheads that were reprocessed into nuke fuel for the US), and keep delivery systems up to date, and they've done that to, with the older Topol-M having a 200M CEP from mobile launchers, and the new Bulava sub-launched MIRV going into service a couple years ago, with a presumed CEP in the 10s of meters or less and six warheads per missile. Notice that both of those are mobile, hard-to-detect platforms, meaning Russia's risk of losing strike capability from a first strike is very low, and they're managing this on a tiny budget relative to the US. Russia doesn't have an insane military budget because they don't need to. (Though I am sure they wish they could afford more, like any power.)
Any leaders that think we can attack Russia and skate away on consequences is going to be surprised. Unfortunately quite a few of them will likely not be prosecutable for starting a war, since they'll be ash.
"meaning Russia's risk of losing strike capability from a first strike is very low, and they're managing this on a tiny budget relative to the US. Russia doesn't have an insane military budget because they don't need to."
Seems to me they are using Reagans tactics on US. They are forcing us to spend a fortune like we did to the old USSR. We are just stupid enough to fall for it.
Russia's smaller military budget is appropriate to a strategy of self defense only. The US spends so much more because their strategy is policing the world.
If the US simply pulled everything within it's own borders it could spend 80% less. That won't happen because the MIC and banksters run the show and they demand their profits.
All bets are off when the bombs starting flying, smaller forces have beaten in the past, especially when defending your home turf. Neocons never want a real war.
everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face
Superpower Bowl III. Bringing it Bitchez...........
I want to see Putin riding the White Pointer again.....
“Christopher Morris is a passionate player of video games since the days of Space Invaders, and is extensively published on the subjects of technology and finance among other subjects, being a regular contributor to Yahoo."
That explains the high quality of this article. There's nothing like a sweaty, basement-dwelling neckbeard to explain the intricacies of military strategy. Hell, I bet this Morris guy has probably played Call of Duty AND Halo.
Cuban Missle Srisis. That's all, folks.
I still think I might trust him more than the Right Honourable Michael Fallon or his predecessor William Hague over here in the UK.
I'd take any researcher over a repeating puppet every day of the week.
"In an estimation published in 2012, graphic designer Maximilian Bode stated that the estimated tonnage of nuclear warheads in the world today would easily be enough to obliterate the entire human population"
Lulz
This is no time for these two to play chess or chicken MAD men play with these weapons and who will loose everyone but the elite.
Great, then the "elite" can spend eternity in an underground bunker telling each other what to do.
No thanks.
Zero Hedge claims to decry statism, and yet it embraces Russia's Putin unreservedly. How exactly does that work?
It is Putin, after all, who is an ardent believer in price controls (witness the recent ceiling on vodka prices), Putin who decides which businesses will be owned outright or controlled by the state (e.g., Rosneft and Gazprom in energy, Sberbank in banking, and Channel One Russia and RT in "news").
Why exactly does Vlad get a pass?
Because he loathes America, just like Zero Hedge and many of its readers.
-
- Become 5e0V2a3's Contact
HistoryPpl like SeOV2a3 don't make me mad, they make me sad. They're the ones standing at the side of the road waving their plastic, made in China plastic US flags and chanting USA!, USA!, USA! at the 4th of July parade while their homes are being searched for "terrists"... not realizing they are being conditioned to love their enslavement.
When I was a child, I feared the monster under my bed. Now, I fear a culture populated by SeOV2a3's, who still fear the monster under their beds.
OT: Why do we think it appropriate to associate our military with events like the Stupid Bowl?
Look how unhinged these .gov trolls are becoming....it's fucking awesome!!!
Yes, and dangerous.
Right its just one big ZH Sucking of Putin's dick...these fucks here (Tyler included) are merely a conduit for the propaganda wing for the Kremlin
Once you read the posts here from that viewpoint, it all becomes krystal Klear..right you fucking Russia fuck bags?
Oh yeah fuck you Russia
Useless talkings.
Or this is just controlled opposition. ...
"nuke ISIS now"
...how anti-semitic of you. You want to harm Tel Aviv?
Vladimir Putin governs Russia in the interest of the Russian people, not the small group of obscenely rich banksters who control the governments of practically every other country in the civilized world. In Russia, rich people who think they're above the law wind up losing their money and doing real time in real prisons. Their money goes to people with better attitudes.
Just so we're clear as well? RT report news. Recycled press releases from DC and Wall Street aren't news.
Hate America? Why? America's a great place. It'll be even better once they get their own Putin willing to clean house on Wall Street and in the MSM.
Or should Russia have its own Bush or Clinton or Obama instead? Clearly being governed by fratboys and EO/AA hires is working out much better, huh?
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/multimedia/video/russians-react-to-ban-on-...
Are you the artiste formerly known as American Patriot?
You sure sound like him.
Russia's most dangerous weapon is it's vast land and freezing climate.
Here's a more nuanced take on both Russia's and America's position vis-a-vis Ukraine.
Stratfor Chief's "Most Blatant Coup in History" Interview Translated in Full
This is the translation of the interview George Friedman of Stratfor gave to the Russian newspaper Kommersant in December and has been cited numerous times since.
George Friedman, the well-known American political scientist, recently visited Moscow. Stratfor, the private analytical and intelligence agency which he directs, is often referred to in the US as a "shadow CIA." In an interview with "Kommersant" he talked about what goals the United States is pursuing in Ukraine, and explained why these goals are incompatible with Russian interests.
KOMMERSANT: In your analytical work you refer to the fragmentation of Europe. How is this fragmentation manifested?
GEORGE FRIEDMAN: During the Cold War the borders within Europe have been preserved. It was understood that, if you start to change them, it will lead to destabilization. Once the Cold War ended, the redrawing of borders got started in Yugoslavia. Later, there came about also a de facto change of the borders in the Caucasus. Quite recently, 45% of Scots voted for independence. The Catalans are also seeking independence.
Against this background, I do not think the Ukrainian situation (where one part of the country feels pulled toward convergence with the EU, while the other is inclined toward Russia) is something altogether unique. The Ukrainian situation fits into the centrifugal tendencies that we have been already been seeing in Europe for a while now. Indeed, until recently, no one thought that the British-Scottish question, which appeared to have been settled 300 years ago, would suddenly and so urgently resurface. In other words: the Ukrainian crisis is connected with Russia, but not only with Russia. It is also associated with processes in Europe, with the crisis of Europe itself.
KOMMERSANT: European politicians say that what is causing the destabilization of Europe are Russia's actions directed toward Ukraine.
GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Europeans are very proud of what they call their "exceptional" status: that supposedly they have rid themselves of war and that, for more than half a century, they have lived in a world of stability and prosperity. But until the early 1990s Europe, in essence, was occupied by the Soviet Union and the United States. And then there was Yugoslavia, then the Caucasus. The European continent has never been truly peaceful.
KOMMERSANT: But US officials, as well as the leadership of EU member states, have explained their harsh policy toward the Russian Federation on the basis that, through its annexation of the Crimea, Russia for the first time since the Second World has "redrawn borders by force."
GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Americans know that this is nonsense. The first example of the changing of borders by force was Yugoslavia. And Kosovo was only the culmination of this process. And the United States is directly involved in these events.
KOMMERSANT: What is the goal of US policy as far as Ukraine is concerned?
GEORGE FRIEDMAN: For all of the last 100 years Americans have pursued a very consistent foreign policy. Its main goal: to not allow any state to amass too much power in Europe. First, the United States sought to prevent Germany from dominating Europe, then it sought to prevent the USSR from strengthening its influence.
The essence of this policy is as follows: to maintain as long as possible a balance of power in Europe, helping the weaker party, and if the balance is about to be significantly disrupted -- to intervene at the last moment. And so, in the case of the First World War, the United States intervened only after the abdication of Nicholas II in 1917, to prevent Germany from gaining ground. And during WWII, the US opened a second front only very late (in June 1944), after it became clear that the Russians were prevailing over the Germans.
What is more, the most dangerous potential alliance, from the perspective of the United States, was considered to be an alliance between Russia and Germany. This would be an alliance of German technology and capital with Russian natural and human resources.
KOMMERSANT: Today, who in your opinion is the United States trying to restrain?
GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Today the US is seeking to block the emergence of a whole range of potential regional hegemons: Serbia, Iran, Iraq. At the same time, the US authorities take advantage of diversionary attacks. For example, in a battle, when the enemy is on the verge of achieving victory, you hit him in the side get him off balance. US does not seek to "defeat" Serbia, Iran or Iraq, but they need to create chaos there, to prevent them from getting too strong.
KOMMERSANT: And with regard to Russia, what tactics do they use?
GEORGE FRIEDMAN: The fragmentation of Europe is accompanied by a weakening of NATO. European countries, in essence, have no [real] armies of their own. In the North Atlantic Alliance the United States is the only country that is strong in military terms. Against the background of the weakening of Europe, the comparative power of Russia has grown significantly.
Russia's strategic imperative is to have as deep a buffer zone on its western borders as possible. Therefore, Russia has always been particularly concerned about its relationship with Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltic States and other countries in Eastern Europe. They are of great importance for Russia's national security.
At the beginning of this year there existed in Ukraine a slightly pro-Russian though very shaky government. That situation was fine for Moscow: after all, Russia did not want to completely control Ukraine or occupy it; it was enough that Ukraine not join NATO and the EU. Russian authorities cannot tolerate a situation in which western armed forces are located a hundred or so kilometers from Kursk or Voronezh.
The United States, for its part, were interested in forming a pro-Western government in Ukraine. They saw that Russia is on the rise, and were eager not to let it consolidate its position in the post-Soviet space. The success of the pro-Western forces in Ukraine would allow the U.S. to contain Russia.
Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'etat organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history.
KOMMERSANT: You mean the termination of the agreement of February 21, or the entire Maidan?
GEORGE FRIEDMAN: The whole thing. After all, the United States openly supported human rights groups in Ukraine, including financially. Meanwhile, Russia's special services completely missed these trends. They didn't understand what was taking place, but when they did realize what was going on they were unable to take action to stabilize the situation, and then they misjudged the mood in East Ukraine.
KOMMERSANT: In other words, the Ukrainian crisis is the result of the confrontation between Russia and the United States?
GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Here you have two countries: one wants a Ukraine that is neutral. The other wants Ukraine to form part of a line of containment against Russian expansion. One cannot say that one party is mistaken: both are acting based on their national interests. It's just that these interests don't jive.
For the Americans, as I have said, it's important to prevent the emergence of a hegemon in Europe. But recently the U.S. has begun to worry about Russia's potential and its intentions. Russia is beginning to move from the defensive position that it has held since 1992 in the direction of the restoration of its influence. It's a matter of the fundamental divergence of the national interests of two great powers.
KOMMERSANT: What actions on the Russian side could have caused the United States to become wary?
GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Russia had begun to take certain steps that the United States considered unacceptable. Primarily in Syria. It was there that Russians demonstrated to the Americans that they are capable of influencing processes in the Middle East. And the US has enough problems in that part of the world already without the Russians.
Russians intervened in the process in the Middle East among other reasons because they had hoped to get leverage to influence US policy in other areas. But they miscalculated. The United States thought that it was Russia's intent to harm them.
It is in this context that we should be evaluating the events in Ukraine. The Russians, apparently, simply have not calculated how seriously the US side might perceive their actions or the extent to which they can easily find countermeasures. It was in this situation that the United States took a look at Russia and thought about what it wants to see happen least of all: instability in Ukraine.
KOMMRERSANT: So you think Ukraine is a form of revenge for Syria?
GEORGE FRIEDMAN: No, not revenge. But Russian intervention in the process in Syria, while the United States was still addressing the problems in Iraq, and was in negotiations with Iran ... In Washington, many people have the impression that Russian want to destabilize the already fragile US position in the Middle East - a region that is of key importance for America.
About this question there were two different points of views in Washington: that the Russian were just fooling around, or that they have found a weak point of the US and were trying to take advantage of it. I'm not saying that Russia's intervention in the Syrian conflict was the cause of the Ukrainian crisis, that would be a stretch. But this intervention tipped the balance of opinion in Washington in the direction of the opinion that Russian is a problem. And in that case what does one do? Not confront them in the Middle East. Better to pull their attention away to a problem in some other region.
Now all of this is a bit oversimplified, obviously it is all more complicated than this in practice, but the cause and effect relationship is as I just described it. As a result, the bottom line is that it is in the strategic interests of the United States to prevent Russia from becoming a hegemon. And it is in the strategic interests of Russia not to allow the United States to come to its borders .....
KOMMERSANT: What, in your opinion, is the idea behind the US sanctions? Russian authorities say that the US wants to bring about regime change.
GEORGE FRIEDMAN: The purpose of the sanctions is to -- with minimal damage to the US and with a somewhat larger damage to the EU -- hurt Russia in order to make it capitulate to US demands.
The sanctions demonstrate the power of the United States. And the United States are happy to make use of that power against countries who lack the means to adequately respond to it. It is also an opportunity to "line up" the Europeans. I do not think that the United States' main purpose is regime change in Russia. The main goal was to limit the Russian authorities' room for maneuver, which is indeed what we are witnessing. But here other factors also played a role, such as, for example, the slowing down of the Russian economy, and falling oil prices.
KOMMERSANT: In Russia, many say that oil prices have dropped thanks to a US conspiracy with countries in the Persian Gulf.
GEORGE FRIEDMAN: It is always easier to explain a difficulty by reference to someone else's deliberate actions. But a number of countries, including China, India and Brazil, have reduced their forecasts as regards their rate of economic growth. And Europe by the way has a zero growth. What is more, a revolution in the petroleum sector is taking place, the amount of available oil is growing.
A fall in oil prices was inevitable. What else did you expect? But you have built your economic strategy not only on high oil prices, but on the export of energy resources as such. That made you vulnerable! You should have used the last 10-15 years of high earnings from selling energy resources to diversify the economy, but your government did not do this.
KOMMERSANT: Can we expect US-Russian relations to improve after the next presidential election in the US?
GEORGE FRIEDMAN: In Russia you overly personify American politics. In the US the president is only one of the institutions of power, he is not all-powerful. Obama is also bound hand and foot, as were his predecessors. If in the Middle East groups like the "Islamic State" are rapidly gaining momentum it doesn't matter whether the US President is a Democrat or a Republican -- he will have to hit them hard.
And no American president can afford to sit by idly if Russia is becoming more and more influential. Russia's actions in the Middle East, or, say, in the case of granting asylum to Edward Snowden were perceived in the US as being directed against US interests. Any US president would have to react to it. About three years ago, in one of my books, I predicted that as soon as Russia starts to increase its power and demonstrate it, a crisis would occur in Ukraine. It was obvious.
KOMMERANT: Howrealistic do you think is Russia's rapprochement with China?
GEORGE FRIEDMAN: China has a lot of problems of its own now -- declining growth, high inflation and unemployment. There is no point expecting gifts from Beijing. And the construction of a pipeline to China, on which the Russian authorities will have to spend a significant amount of money, is unlikely to have any sort of tangible impact on the Russian economy.
KOMMERSANT: What's your sense of how the situation in the Ukraine will develop further?
GEORGE FRIEDMAN: Russia will not make concessions in the Crimea, that is obvious. But I imagine it will face serious problems with getting supplies to the peninsula. And yet Moscow cannot retreat from a number of its requirements with respect to Ukraine. It cannot allow Western military forces to be located on Ukraine territory. This is a nightmare in Moscow, and limits its room for maneuver.
The US will need to make a strategic decision, not now but in the future, either to intervene more actively in events in Ukraine, which is fraught with difficulties, or to build a new alliance -- within NATO or outside of NATO -- with the participation of Poland, Romania, the Baltic States and, for example, Turkey. This is already happening, slowly but it is happening. And this will be something that Russia will not accept -- a "cordon sanitaire." It's not that the US needs to have control over Ukraine; for them the important thing is that it not be controlled by Russia.
Much will depend on Kive.The government in Kiev is the Ukraine's weak point. If it fractures - something which, surprisingly, is not what we observe, then Russia will try to turn this to their favor.
But the main question is whether Russia itself can come through in one piece. It is now facing many of the factors that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union: the lack of an effective transportation system; a skeptical attitude towards the capital in many regions, from the Caucasus to the Far East; but the main thing is that there is an economy that can only function under certain circumstances -- namely, high energy prices. You have only one product, and today there is an excess of it on the global market.
This Friedman guy sounds like a mensch.
Do you know him from Temple?
How about just posting a link to your shitty, mossad owned propaganda website, you hasbara piece of infectious human waste?
Spamming cunt.
hmmm smells like CIA
George Friedman is the Chairman of Stratfor, a company he founded in 1996 that is now a leader in the field of global intelligence. Friedman guides Stratfor's strategic vision and oversees the development and training of the company's intelligence unit. His forthcoming book Flashpoints: The Emerging Crisis in Europe will be released on Jan. 27.
Dr. Friedman is the author of The New York Times best-seller? The Next Decade, which forecasts the major events and challenges that? will test America and its presidents over the course? of the next decade. Dr. Friedman's previous book, The Next? 100 Years, was also a New ?York Times best-seller and was published in over 20? languages. His other books on warfare and intelligence include America's Secret War, The Future of War and The Intelligence Edge.
A very popular keynote speaker, Dr. Friedman is in high demand at numerous conferences and industry-specific events for major financial firms such as J.P. Morgan, Citibank, Ernst & Young and many Fortune 500 companies. In addition, he has briefed the Australian Command and Staff College, Eglin Air Force Research Laboratory, U.S. Marine Corps Command and Staff College and many other military and government organizations. Dr. Friedman is frequently invited to speak internationally, including in Turkey, Germany, Poland, Azerbaijan, Australia and New Zealand.
The world's top media organizations regularly ask Dr. Friedman to appear as an international affairs expert. He has been featured in TIME, The New York Times Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Fortune, Newsweek, The Financial Times and many other domestic and international publications, as well as broadcast media ranging from NPR to CNN to CNBC. He and Stratfor were also featured in cover stories in Barron's and the New Statesman.
He received his Bachelor's degree from the City College of the City University of New York and holds a Ph.D. in Government from Cornell University.
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Friedman. Yet another Irishman causing trouble.
That's a good laugh right there.
I'm glad this came up as I have been working out the math of a war with US/NATO vs. Russia.
It's a kinda new math, though simpler than common core:
1 + 1 = 0
1 - 1 = 0
1 x 1 = 0
1/1 = 0
And it works regardless of the integers used, hence
1,000 x 3,000,000 = 0.00
and so on....
No way the BLS won't be offering you a 6 figure career
The Russians 'got through' 1991, but not before the country collapsed and was split up into 15 separate republics. For the next couple of decades - continuing through to this day - Russia's best and brightest flee the land of suffering for places like America and Europe. And those that can get a visa are still fleeing!
Each year a small handful of Lee Harvey Oswalds emigrate to Russia...but many thousands more leave Russia's shores for the US.
I wonder why?
I believe that trend is reversing.
< There is always a Russian sub parked off the coast by D.C.
< There is an American sub parked under the ice close to St. Petersburg
"There Was always a Russian sub parked off the coast by D.C." -- there, fixed it for you.
How do you know ? :D . Keep beliving in your fanasies
'The United States has over 145 million people who could theoretically serve in the armed forces'
Well, if you back out of that figure the 'free sh!t army', the morbidly obese (who could not roll down a hill without going into cardiac arrest), those who are dumber than a sack of hammers (and completely unteachable), those that are on 'disability', then I suppose that leaves approximatley 116,305 (give or take) possible candidates.
Here it is.
Russian culture is the best demonstrated in the war raging now in Donbass, East Ukraine. Basically, becaus there is draft in Russia, almost all men have basic military training and can easily join fighting in the case of the ground assault. This training includes michines, tanks, cannons, etc. But those in higher education spend 1 day per week training as officer and go into reserve after graduation. Periodicaly, they are called into training to refresh the skills. And what I meant by culture is deep association with community which is common more on the east than west (where more individualizm prevails). That is why many ethnic russian went to ukraine to defend ethnic russian in Donbass.
So, this all means that ground assault to Russia is doomed, something neither Napoleon nor Hitler realized. On the other side western public is not likely rise to defend with a few exceptions.
FSA - "Free stuff over there!"
Morbidly obese - "Free food over there!"
Dumber than a sack of hammers - "Go over there and you'll be rich and famous!"
Disability - See FSA
All would be quite acceptable for clearing minefields.
Both countries are heavily weaponized but the real question is who has the political and moral fortitude to actually use them.
Quote...
Both countries are heavily weaponized but the real question is who has the political and moral fortitude to actually use them.
The real question is who is batshit crazy enough to even think of using them?
FIFY
How many 'Murikans are fit for service? You're kiddin' right? Those invalid scooters are hopeless on rough terrain, not to mention the folks in the Texas and vicinity have sighted their weapons on internal forces; the REAL ENEMY.
Why do so many Russians flee Russia for America?
Why do so few Americans flee America for Russia?
Why, people, why? :-)
Because the Jewish/Communist "Nomenklatura" ended up jobless after the fall of the Soviet Union and migrated to a healthier host?
Global reserve status (undeserved in regards to the USA) = cheap (printed) capital = easy to use the system for personal capital benefit if one is smart
Change the country with GRS (which is underway) and the USA will be a third world country.
Because "Fleeing to Russia" isn't even an option dumbass. Unless your safety might serve the strategic interest of the Russian Federation - and embarrass the USSA. Furthermore, most Americans are too incompetent to even obtain a visitors' visa, much less an immigration visa to Russia. (It really is a pain the ass - between the certified bank check, the interviews, the supplementary documentation, and the fact that they actually deport wetbacks-- so you can't just jump off the plane at Domodedovo airport and shout "Open Sesame" or "Gimme SNAP")
http://www.russianembassy.org/page/general-visa-information
http://www.russianembassy.org/page/documents-on-demand
They've taken the Russian application off the embassy website but from my files - I have a one set of questions from my last business visa to Russia and another from my wife's tourist visa renewal to the USSA.
Russian "Efficiency" (but strangely a real headache and very time consuming for the applicant)
28. List all educational institutions you ever attended, except high schools (Name, Address and phone number, Course of study, Dates of admission and graduation)
29. List all professional, civil and charity organizations which you are/were a member of or cooperate/cooperated with
30. Do you have any specialized skills, training or experience related to fire-arms and explosives or to nuclear matters, biological or chemical substance? If yes, please specify
31. Have you ever performed a military service? If yes, indicate the country, branch of service, rank, military occupation and dates of service
32. Have you ever been involved in an armed conflicts, either as a member of the military service or a victim? If yes, please specify
33. IMPORTANT! EACH APPLICANT MUST READ AND GIVE ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any offence?
Have you ever been afflicted with a communicable disease of public health significance or a dangerous physical or mental disorder?
Have you ever been a drug abuser or a addict?
Have you ever been refused a Russian visa?
Has your Russian visa ever been canceled?
Have you ever tried to obtain or assisted others to obtain a Russian visa or enter Russia by providing misleading or false information?
Have you ever overstayed your Russian visa or stayed unlawfully in Russia?
Have you ever been deported from Russia?
'Murikan Idiocrisy - but at least one can CTRL-C/CTRL-P "NO" and be done with it in a couple minutes
Do you have a mental or physical disorder that poses or is likely to pose a threat to the safety or welfare of yourself or others?
Are you or have you ever been a drug abuser or addict?
Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any offense or crime, even though subject of a pardon, amnesty, or other similar action?
Have you ever violated, or engaged in a conspiracy to violate, any law relating to controlled substances?
Are you coming to the United States to engage in prostitution or unlawful commercialized vice or have you been engaged in prostitution or procuring prostitutes within the past 10 years?
Have you ever been involved in, or do you seek to engage in, money laundering?
Have you ever committed or conspired to commit a human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States?
Are you the spouse, son, or daughter of an individual who has committed or conspired to commit a human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States and have you within the last five years, knowingly benefited from the trafficking activities?
Have you knowingly aided, abetted, assisted or colluded with an individual who has committed or conspired to commit a severe human trafficking offense in the United States or outside the United States?
Do you seek to engage in espionage, sabotage, export control violations, or any other illegal activity while in the United States?
Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?
Have you ever or do you intend to provide financial assistance or other support to terrorists or terrorist organizations?
Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization?
Have you ever ordered, incited, committed, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide?
Have you ever committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in torture?
Have you committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in extrajudicial killings, political killings, or other acts of violence?
Have you ever engaged in the recruitment or the use of the child soldiers?
Have you, while serving as a government official, been responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom?
Have you ever been directly involved in the establishment or enforcement of the population controls forcing a woman to undergo an abortion against her free choice or a man or a woman to undergo sterilization against his or her free will?
Have you ever been directly involved in the coercive transplantation of human organs or bodily tissue?
Have you ever been the subject of a removal or deportation hearing?
Have you ever sought to obtain or assist others to obtain a visa, entry into the United States, or any other United States immigration benefit by fraud or willful misrepresentation or other unlawful means?
Have you failed to attend a hearing on removability or inadmissibility within the last five years?
Have you ever been unlawfully present, overstayed the amount of time granted by an immigration official or otherwise violated the terms of a U.S. visa?
Have you ever withheld custody of a U.S. citizen child outside the United States from a person granted legal custody by a U.S. court?
Have you voted in the United States in violation of any law or regulation?
Have you ever renounced United States citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation?
Have you attended a public elementary school on student (F) status or a public secondary school after November 30, 1996 without reimbursing the school?
@ 5e ( Private 2nd Rate )
Get out now and we'll accept come HANG TIME that you were only following ORDERS, Ok Da?
Plus you can't be any older than 22 and ripe for getting SHAFTED from both SIDES.
Is it because of the 50% unemployment rate the lying government pretends is much lower? I suspect the only Russians fleeing to America are rich because in America money can buy a very nice life in a nice climate. I thinkyour idea of life in Russia is probably wrong.
This article fails to understand that not only will there be no winner, but more importantly there will not be anything left even if there IS a winner.
Nuclear war is not the end all catastrophe that most alive today envision. I highly recommend this publication which, incidentally, contains what used to be common knowledge during the height of the cold war......
“What To Do If A Nuclear Disaster Is Imminent!
This is very true on an individual and small community basis, nuclear war is actually pretty survivable. It will, though, likely be the end of large-scale nations for quite some time, and probably of most large cities even if they're not directly targetted, just due to the loss of infrastructure and support systems. A nuclear war will turn back the clock on the countries involved probably on the order of 200 years, at least for a little while. Plenty of people lived fine 200 years ago.
But they didn't glow in the dark.