digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at abcnews.go.com —

How Strong Is Russia?

abcnews.go.com — Experts Are Divided, but U.S. Intelligence Believes Russia's Military May Be World's Second Strongest.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • darkchild82, on 08/22/2008, -20/+81Man, I love U.S. "Intelligence". Russia's military remained strong even after the break-up of the Soviet Union. There are millions in this world who already know that.

    China maybe bigger as far as army personnel go but as far as armor and everything else, Russia's stronger than anyone outside of the U.S.
    • BabyWookie, on 08/22/2008, -3/+64In the years following the break-up of the USSR, the only arm of the Russian military that really remained "battle-ready" was their Strategic Rocket Forces. The ground forces were in a disarray. A lot of the officers had quit the military, because they were not getting paid their salaries. The conscripts were abused, poorly-fed, under-equipped and demoralized. They could barely assemble large, coherent units to send to Chechnya in 1994. They often had to rely on poorly trained conscripts and police men to do the brunt of the fighting. The coordination between all the different branches (the army, the VVD (air-borne troops), the marines, the OMON (police), MVD (internal affairs troops) and the air force) was horrific and led to awful friendly fire incidents. The air force couldn't properly train, do to the lack of fund for the fuel. It was a ***** mess.

      They are a lot better now though.
      • Slade605, on 08/23/2008, -4/+17Screw 'Little Einstein' we need BabyWookie to teach our kids.
      • dsmx, on 08/23/2008, -2/+4Sounds a lot like the soviet forces just before germany declared war on them.
      • insurgente, on 08/23/2008, -1/+3@ dsmx:

        Hitler never declared war on the Soviet Union, he just invaded.
      • dsmx, on 08/23/2008, -2/+6In my book if you invade a country that is a declaration of war.
      • rpgmaker, on 08/24/2008, -2/+3@dsmx: Not in Bush's book.

        @BabyWookie: Russia is a strong superpower. They are as big as the US in what weapon manufacturing is concerned. Don't fool yourself, you don't break apart a superpower just because you beat them in a war. The wealthy people in it is still powerful and maybe wealthiest.
      • bemenaker, on 08/24/2008, -1/+2I truly have a hard time imagining Russia is still as big of a threat of they are made out to be. They decimated their Army in 90's but Putin did try to rebuild it later when we went power crazy. But in any confrontation, the Russian designed equipment has held up dismally in combat against western weapons, and it's not just the training. The western forces' weapons just don't have a problem destroying their equipment. The don't have the shear numbers to overwhelm with anymore, and those numbers were never as big as we believed. I just don't see how Russia could maintain a prolonged massive conflict.
      • BabyWookie, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1@bemenaker:

        It is only on a couple of rare occasions that the same generations and grades of Soviet and Western equipments were used against each other. The Iran-Iraq War was such an occasion. In that war, the Iraqi's 1970's import grade Soviet ***** proved to be very adequate against the Iranians 1970's import grade American *****.

        You have to realize that the Soviets never imported their latest, greatest stuff. They imported only the cheapened, downgraded systems from a their previous generation. Yes, during Desert Storm, the Iraqi T-72 clones had failed miserably against American tanks, but they would also have failed miserably against the current Soviet tanks, including the upgraded T-72's. The Iraqi T-72's lacked composite armor, reactive armor, night vision, modern penetrator munitions, ballistic computers, etc ...basically all the stuff that their Soviet counter-parts had. They were basically WW2 tanks in a T-72 shell.

        In 1991, a Soviet T-80 or and upgraded T-72, would have had no problem detecting, engaging and destroying an M1 tank from miles away.
    • warriorscot, on 08/23/2008, -12/+4The combined European forces would probably be better, Europe's militaries are largely built around fighting as a group of nations. With similar number Russia would not fair as well, their biggest advantage is in numbers but Europe and a lesser extent the US has always trained and equipped itself in order to avoid engagements where numerical superiority can be brought to bear and rely on superior training and equipment.

      If Russia really believed itself to be that strong they would not be kicking up so much trouble, and to be honest it is not that relevant given the new WMDs being developed do not rely on nuclear reactions to cause damage.

    • sanman, on 08/23/2008, -7/+20It's not the Russians but the Americans who harbor ambitions to achieve Full Spectrum Dominance:

      http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_cont ...
      • cornerback42, on 08/23/2008, -1/+3Interesting viewpoint. I kinda see where they (the russians) are coming from.
      • cygnus2112, on 08/23/2008, -7/+3Interesting viewpoint. Although, America wasn't the one who invaded a neighbor over the past few weeks.
      • cmackattack, on 08/23/2008, -4/+7You are kidding right Cygnus? America has "invaded" more than 150 countries....

        *****, we have over 700 military bases in over 130 countries alone...that doesn't even start to mention the number of US businesses that make slaves of foreign countries civilians...
    • forevernomad, on 08/23/2008, -4/+7A fun analogy: Georgia is on the floor, Russia is standing up and the US is the dude in red.
      http://www.break.com/index/best-one-punch-knockout ...
      That is exactly how the US getting involved will work out.
    • swatter22, on 08/23/2008, -3/+3Nah..just another attempt to instill fear into neighboring to Russia nations. OK may be that was too dramatic, but pretty much that's how things are :)
      Its easier to get some arrangements on military installations, when you convince the other side there is a real threat.
      On the other hand, it was naive to think that Russian military is nothing but scrap metal incapable of firing a single shot, and Eastern Europe was always wary of Russia on instinct and didn't need any analysis anyway...
    • UheardItHear, on 08/23/2008, -5/+4I have to agree with the this quote, "China maybe bigger as far as army personnel go but as far as armor and everything else, Russia's stronger than anyone outside of the U.S."

      However, one thing both China and Russia have together is a lack of military experience to form what could be considered one of the most massive military personnel forces unfit to fight battle hardened troops. Any formidable foe (ie. the U.S.) will crush Russia - but not without taking heavy losses. And it'd require help from the British, one of the U.S.'s greatest and most formidable allies.

      If Russia keeps this up the world is in for a very dark, cold decade ahead of us. War is ugly, and this war -- if it becomes that -- could be one of the ugliest in world history. I only pray and hope to God that Russia smartens up and doesn't do anything stupid. It won't be fun for anyone if they get to cocky...
      • djoobacca, on 08/23/2008, -3/+7russia... lacks military experience? let's see your profile and see where you're from then. oh, you're from US. that explains everything.
      • xtrench, on 08/23/2008, -4/+7Russia lacks experience? That's highly inaccurate. Is the U.S very experienced after Vietnam and Iraq? Even if the U.S did crush Russia, do you suppose they won't launch all of their nukes as a last resort? Then what?

        Russia doesn't need to smarten up, Russia isn't eager for war. It's the Americans, whose media already propagates that the Russians are vile terrorists.

        As a third party I feel that the U.S is being an ***** about the whole situation. No disrespect for Americans but your government sucks.
    • TheSuckBlog, on 08/23/2008, -3/+2Russia is the greatest and most powerful nation on earth!

  • marttub, on 08/22/2008, -14/+67The difference is that Russia doesn't have 200,000 of its troops tied down fighting two separate wars in two separate countries. If something happens in Poland, the U.S. won't be able to act fast enough to counter the Russians. It'll be WW3...
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 08/22/2008, -10/+47The US Air Force isn't that busy at the moment. Let's hope those F-22s are as good as they are cracked up to be.
      • TheImaginator, on 08/24/2008, -0/+2You'll need 'em for fighting Iran.
        Oh, and the Chinese have a fairly big air force, and a big wad of US treasurary notes apparently.
    • kigcoopa84, on 08/22/2008, -28/+20They are and the pilots at the top of the game. Get some
      • xNarrowSoulx, on 08/23/2008, -4/+7Maybe so, but killing isn't a game, and 'get some' isn't really the best way to put it. We're all hoping nobody has to go 'get some' with an F-22.
      • cygnus2112, on 08/23/2008, -1/+15"but killing isn't a game"

        Astute observation from someone with the Half-Life symbol as their icon/avatar.
      • ToadLeg, on 08/23/2008, -1/+4@cygnus2112

        Hi Jack Thompson, here's a video for you:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiT2cbyRtAI
    • Badandy127, on 08/23/2008, -7/+14They are that good.
      • gwolf, on 08/24/2008, -0/+2That won't be enough to save you from a Russian MIRV. Think of the names of Ten U.S. Cities and tell me it's worth the risk.
    • ghanes14, on 08/23/2008, -14/+13Sometimes I just don't think America knows when to say enough. We keep fighting wars that aren't even our battles, and one of these times we are going to end up in a mess we can't easily fix...
      • forevernomad, on 08/23/2008, -13/+1...and one of these times we are going to end up leaving the world to it and save some American lives

        Damnit I'll have it in a minute.

        ....and one of these times we are going to end up getting our soldiers slaughtered for no good reason.

        *****! Hold on I'll fix it.

        ...and one of these times we are going to end up getting our asses handed to us.

        There, fixed that for you.
      • KSUdesigner, on 08/23/2008, -4/+13I think we're already in a mess that we can't easily fix.
      • kazamx, on 08/23/2008, -0/+5Thats what happened to Europe and it started WW1. At the time it was called the great game and it was just a bunch of small stuff that got out of control.
      • cygnus2112, on 08/23/2008, -4/+1@KSUdesigner: "I think we're already in a mess that we can't easily fix."

        What are you referring to? Iraq is pretty much over. Or have you not been reading news for the past year or so?
      • cmackattack, on 08/23/2008, -1/+5"What are you referring to? Iraq is pretty much over. Or have you not been reading news for the past year or so?"

        Yeah, I mean, 2012 is only 4 more years away and we will be out of iraq, but still in afghanipakistan, and possibly 3 or more other countries in asia...idiot...
    • cakesecret, on 08/23/2008, -7/+12You have no idea what you are talking about. Russia is not stupid enough to truly provoke the USA, but if they do, it would be a national embarrassment for Putin and his merry band of Russian nationalists.

      In the meantime, Putin, the oilman who happens to own an army, is content to create further uncertainty in his hope to drive up oil prices on the futures markets.
      • kazamx, on 08/23/2008, -2/+6Wow Putin sounds pretty much 100% the same as Bush in your description.
    • 1gunners4, on 08/23/2008, -12/+5Actually, the US Navy is fairly bored right now; though the naval warships wouldn't be able to directly protect Poland, Russia's naval access would be gone within a weeks time.
    • judicar, on 08/23/2008, -6/+8The flip side of that argument is that Russia doesn't have 200,000 battle tested troops.
      • xNarrowSoulx, on 08/23/2008, -2/+17Agreed, but they don't have 200,000+ battle *weary* troops, and millions of citizens sick of others' wars.
      • cygnus2112, on 08/23/2008, -10/+6True. But invade Poland or Ukraine, and I think those "battle weary troops" would go kick major ***** communist-wannabe ass with the full support of citizens sick of Russia's wars.
      • J4k3, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2You guys have a point. Interesting view, for sure.
      • xNarrowSoulx, on 08/26/2008, -0/+2@cygnus: You get points for trying.
    • bocaJWho, on 08/23/2008, -7/+2Russia also doesn't pay it's troops all that well, so it balances out.
      • RightHand, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1OMG? Worse than American troops?
        Or is it in comparison to the contractors?
    • mthmchris, on 08/23/2008, -1/+14No, it won't be WW3. IF for some stupid reason Russia actually attacked Poland (not going to happen), we wouldn't do *****. Poland may be a cool place with decent vodka, but it's not worth the complete destruction of the world. Some economic sanctions, and a stern scolding.

      Nuclear powers do NOT go to war with each other. This includes China, by the way. If they stupidly invaded Taiwan (again, not going to happen - Taiwan in Mainland China's largest source of foreign direct investment), the United States wouldn't intervene, even if we weren't in Iraq. As much as we may like the DPP, it wouldn't be worth an ICBM landing in Manhattan.
      • orlyfactor, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1Don't make Poland whipping boy for the umpteenth time. They had their fill of the Russians and Germans enough in their time. I'd go fight for them (I live in the US and can trace my heritage back to Poland); F the middle east and all those crazy assholes, defending Poland would be a war I'd fight.
      • RightHand, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1Well if it was just to take out that other loud-mouthed Nazi and Bush buddy as in Georgia, then would not we all be better off? No? What's it with these blubber mouths than believe they have to keep on threatening just because they think Bush is their friend and ally? Most young Poles here in Ireland are deeply ashamed of their president's bush-hugging. They cheered when the twin was dumped.

        Wait until Bush is hiding out in some hole in Crawford with a very long bin Laden beard, and see the changes in any fascist loud mouths here in Europe. Just look to South America. Well except the drug supplying Columbia. Sorry.
    • brundlefly76, on 08/24/2008, -0/+2I cant believe we are even talking about this - there is absolutely no ***** reason whatsoever for the USA and Russia to get into a war with each other, period.

      mthmchris is right - the only war between nuclear superpowers is a Cold War - with hot zones of conflict cautiously managed through third-country proxy.
    • feeldarhythme, on 08/27/2008, -0/+1I don't believe, that Russia will occupy Poland now.
      First, it would be unforgivable, even for russian people, russians don't want to become occupants.

      Second, there is no need in occupying Europe now. It's 21st century, and our country is not ruled by old farts like Brezhnev, who could make such stupid actions.
  • kigcoopa84, on 08/22/2008, -24/+9GET SOME AMERICA
    • gwolf, on 08/24/2008, -0/+4Dear lord I hope your not a U.S. Army general.
  • Crustibooga, on 08/22/2008, -19/+85I don't wanna P155 on your parade, but as far as I can see Russia is just as strong as the USA. What I mean by that is if WWIII did break out (that's a very big IF) and IF nukes started flying around, we're all doomed - no one is stronger. We all have to hope that none of our leaders are stupid enough to p1ss each other off. You simply can't sabre rattle when it comes to countries with nuclear weapons.
    • SaranWrap, on 08/22/2008, -19/+14Do you need to use the bathroom... just asking?
    • Zipko, on 08/23/2008, -2/+91There isn't a language filter for writing posts.

      *****, piss, *****, *****, *****, *****, *****
    • beartamer, on 08/23/2008, -1/+9The next question is John McCain is stupid enough? Because with that kind of situation in the world he takes a lead in the race ... like it or not...
      • Elranzer, on 08/23/2008, -1/+6Yes he is. Thankfully he ever won't be president.
    • Gudeldar, on 08/23/2008, -8/+2Your right, but I buried you anyway for censoring yourself, the language filter is optional.
    • ghanes14, on 08/23/2008, -1/+12I agree, if Russia is supposed to be as strong as the U.S I don't think we should try to make them mad. I mean if they are as strong as believed, do we really want to go against a country which could send multiple nukes to attack us with instead of wasting their time?
      • shatteredmind, on 08/23/2008, -1/+5first smart comment and someone actually buried you... lol
        this area seems to be filled with brainless warmongers.
        hey .. fine by me !! .. i've been wasting my life away so far . just waiting for ww3 to begin .. once it starts everything else will be meaningless .. so why bother with anything.

        just place those rockets in poland fast ... and lets get it on! we've been only putting the whole thing off since the russians did the same stupid move on cuba. a few smart people prevented it ... now lets do the same ***** the other way round.
        stupid people do stupid ***** ... like .. killing eachother.
        theres no way to cure stupidity ... so .. why bother saving them ... its just a pitty the cowardly politicians never get their hands dirty ... they should be leading the first wave .. instead of sending others to die ... ***** cowards .. if they want a war ..they should fight it themselves!
      • RightHand, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1Then there's China. Whose side would they chose? If they pull the plug on the US economy, how long would the the military manage?



    • chihpih, on 08/23/2008, -1/+10Russia is still strong and everyone knows it. Rice just likes to bark like a dog when she knows she cant do anything.

      Russia is handling its own agenda at their on turf. When US invaded 2 "neighbors" of Russia and started a long war did Russia want to put up a missile base in Cuba? US wanted to ***** with Russia and install a base in Poland and now Russia is getting one in Syria.
      • csw1342, on 08/23/2008, -0/+3" Rice just likes to bark like a dog when she knows she cant do anything."

        LOL


        "will someone tell Sally Hemmings to please shut the ***** up."
    • xNarrowSoulx, on 08/23/2008, -1/+7Nukes... Mutually assured destruction. All of us who don't believe in God (Russia) or those of us who don't take God too seriously (USA) really don't want the ICBMs to go up.
      • beartamer, on 08/23/2008, -0/+5Yeah... religious warmongers are too dangerous... so long as "more people were killed in the name of God that for any other reason" ©
    • waaykuul, on 08/27/2008, -0/+0Why can't people realize what WOPR in War Games did: there is no winner in nuclear war.
  • Ninh, on 08/22/2008, -1/+5And why wouldn't they, if any perceived threat keeps their budget up.
  • ThinkOutTheBox, on 08/23/2008, -0/+16Yea after looking into other matters I found this..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2FGA3Z-oYM

    All these nuclear weapons talk sounds like a lot of Fear mongering from both sides of the fence.
    • grylls, on 08/23/2008, -2/+2My respect for Russia just went up a notch. Who needs to pollute the world with radioactive fallout when you got this? I just hope they drop them on military targets when the time comes.
      • redcatalina, on 08/23/2008, -2/+2Why? It was simply in response to the US's MOAB dropped in Florida in 2003(?)

        We do not have them in our arsenal as they are of no real value. They are purely for show. We like to hit specific targets with smaller bombs. Bigger is not always better.

        Heck, we have bombs that are nothing more than concrete with guidance systems. I kid you not.
      • pahoehoe, on 08/23/2008, -0/+4Russian Air Bomb: 16,000 lbs explosive, 44 tons TNT equivalent
        U.S. B61 Nuclear bomb: 700 lbs (including casing), 170,000 tons TNT equivalent

        When people say that these air bombs are like a nuclear weapon without the radioactivity, they are comparing the weakest nuke ever to the biggest conventional bomb. It's annoying, and creates many misconceptions. There's no replacement from a military or political standpoint to nuclear weapons. Delivering the Air Bomb requires a large bomber, whereas the nuclear bomb can be delivered by just about any aircraft available.
  • identifiedlogo, on 08/23/2008, -12/+68Stop testing the Russians!!!!!!!!
    • suckaPU, on 08/23/2008, -21/+11they need to stop testing us as well
      • PopASquatt, on 08/23/2008, -1/+5It would have been fine if George W. didn't open his big ***** mouth about the invasion of Georgia and become an even bigger hypocrite then he already is by basically slapping the Russians in the face with such a bold unsupported statement. Now he's going even further with the talks about the Poland missile shield.

        US invades Iraq = Fine.
        Russia invades anyone = Unacceptable!

        The only thing the Russians have said that could remotely test us is placing missiles in Syria, which is basically evening out the US decision to place a missile shield in Poland!

        We've woken the Red Bear from her hibernation.
    • ghanes14, on 08/23/2008, -0/+28Sometimes I think America doesn't think, we are so round up trying to show our power we rarely take time to stop and think, is this maybe a bad choice? Usually a kid on the playground bullies others until the day he goes against one kid that doesn't take it and beats him up in return.

      All I'm saying is stop and think about it, we've been fighting a war in the middle of a desert for 7 or 8 years, should we really risk another full blown war in Russia?
      • roxgod666, on 08/23/2008, -0/+10that doesn't even require thinking

    • Perk, on 08/23/2008, -4/+8Yeah... the Russian's have Bear Cavalry!

      http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s138/thebatman4 ...
  • preppypoof, on 08/23/2008, -11/+19Can Someone Tell Me Why Every Word In The Description Is Capitalized?
    • kefkaantakrist, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2Because It Is Good Fun And Everyone Needs A Hobby!
    • impei, on 08/23/2008, -0/+3The word 'but' is not capitalized.
    • deralte, on 08/23/2008, -2/+5actually that's the right way of writing titles and such, afaik.
      • drgmdp, on 08/23/2008, -1/+1only in countries with very little sense of criteria
    • cornerback42, on 08/23/2008, -1/+2OCD?
  • mfc5200, on 08/23/2008, -3/+32Glad we're making tons of friends in the Middle East now as opposed to saving our money and positioning ourselves to remain strong and secure well into the 21st century. Good job Bush, bravo.

    • serif69, on 08/23/2008, -9/+2Yeah. Because Bush is responsible for us not making friends in the Middle East over the past century.
  • DougUpndown, on 08/23/2008, -15/+2If Russia are 2nd strongest in the world, and USA and China are competing for 3rd, who is #1?
    • Aerandir, on 08/23/2008, -3/+2That's easy: your mom.

      Oh wait....
    • ghanes14, on 08/23/2008, -1/+9Probably Canada, it's usually the quite ones you have to watch for...
    • Daxx22, on 08/23/2008, -5/+1One Beaver is worth two in the Bush.
    • Spartanious, on 10/05/2008, -0/+1From what i've heard its israel.
  • suckaPU, on 08/23/2008, -28/+4the russians are weak. yeah they have nukes but we'll just shoot them down. then we'll blow moscow straight to hell. it's gonna be awsome.
    • simplistics06, on 08/23/2008, -3/+11retard
    • beartamer, on 08/23/2008, -0/+15@suckaPU
      I think that you should apply for presidency in 2012. You have a real chance according to a previous experience...
    • roxgod666, on 08/23/2008, -0/+8oh no, the idiots are slowly beginning to figure out how to get past the captcha. I never thought this day would come
  • nastronomical, on 08/23/2008, -16/+28If a ground war broke out in Europe it will be Russia vs NATO countries...Russia is *****. There air force cannot take on the rest of Europe. In a groudn war the best they can do is invade surrounding former states as far as spear heading an advance into germany, france and so is impossible.
    • tim04, on 08/23/2008, -7/+19I believe you've forgotten the amount of nukes that they have. No one in that situation is ever "*****".
      • Badandy127, on 08/23/2008, -4/+19You've also forgotten the amount of nukes NATO countries hold. It's called mutually assured destruction, and it pretty much guarantees Russia will not nuke any NATO forces.
      • whorunbartertwn, on 08/23/2008, -3/+17tim04 by that logic the United States wasn't ***** in Vietnam, since we had plenty of nukes and they had none. 40,000 casualties later and an American pullout, US was pretty *****.
      • kernel16, on 08/23/2008, -2/+2The difference here being losing sovereign power in your own nation, I don't think the current people in power in Russia would care much about the whole world vs. them being dethroned.
      • gwolf, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1I just love how the hawks talk as if WWII would in any way shape or form resemble WWIII.
      • tim04, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1@Badandy127, you're assuming Russia is ruled by the rational. I wouldn't put too much money that personally.
    • NightVortez, on 08/23/2008, -1/+2Well yeah, look at the amount of countries which belong to NATO, why do you think Russia is against it? Had the Warsaw Pact still existed the rest of Europe would be just as ***** against them.
    • djoobacca, on 08/23/2008, -2/+15You can't even tell the difference between their and there. How can you even consider yourself qualified enough to give a military analysis? Stay off the meth, kid.
    • WishItWerePaul, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2everybody would be *****, dont kid yourself
  • goon5000, on 08/23/2008, -9/+1in soviet russia..
  • jaxontyler, on 08/23/2008, -16/+2Does that make China's first?
  • hutectro, on 08/23/2008, -4/+16I don't think the Russian Bear is something to mess with bears have a tendency to turn and attack when you don't expect it and when they do attack they go for the throat.
    • RaulMuadDib, on 08/23/2008, -1/+15Bears are giant, marauding, godless killing machines
    • redfred18t, on 08/23/2008, -11/+1I thought bears were deathly afraid of humans?
    • NightVortez, on 08/23/2008, -2/+7There is a reason they are the number one threat to America.
      • hutectro, on 08/23/2008, -5/+1So True --- I would never trust them same goes for China
        Those two countries are still Communist run.
  • trollick, on 08/23/2008, -4/+53"Georgia's smaller army was hardly a challenge to the Russians"

    I really doubt that the WHOLE Russian army was fighting Georgia there.
    Their army is spread over 11 time zones, so they could not have brought it to Georgia just in a few hours.
    • LvsSocer, on 08/23/2008, -19/+18They didn't -- they amassed troops over a period of weeks and then essentially provoked the Georgians into a response (using Ossetian rebel groups led by Russian Officers).

      This was designed to show force, and they built up forces specifically for that reason.
      • insurgente, on 08/23/2008, -4/+18Sod off. The Georgian quasi-fascists are trying to keep South Ossetia under Georgian rule by force. They never had real control over the area.
      • jameskong15, on 08/23/2008, -2/+10"using Ossetian rebel groups led by Russian Officers)"

        Prove it.
    • pauls88, on 08/24/2008, -3/+19 time zones
  • futureisours, on 08/23/2008, -17/+5We've all seen the footage and it's a joke. Bunch of disheveled troops and 60's era personnel transports and tanks. We'd wipe the floor with them in any conventional war.
    • simplistics06, on 08/23/2008, -5/+2yea till you find out they tip all their weapons with nuclear war heads
    • yellowswan, on 08/23/2008, -4/+15I love how my fellow US Citizens have this mentality where if anyone else is competitive with the US in any global sphere of influence that they must assert the US's ultimate dominance in every aspect, ever… And, if it comes down to it, we can "Nuke `Em."

      In other words, you're a moron.
      • Badandy127, on 08/23/2008, -7/+2In other words, he's completely right about the U.S.'s military supremacy over the Russians, however much his post lacked tact and detail. If you actually read up on different militaries, you might know that.
  • pauls88, on 08/23/2008, -5/+62i hear russia can bench press 500 pounds
    • zboyet, on 08/23/2008, -2/+1Yeah but I also heard they were on roids (you did not hear that from me)
  • thereisnostate, on 08/23/2008, -8/+2It's as strong as ABC news is crappy.
  • tommyjames, on 08/23/2008, -13/+5"However, American intelligence believes Russia's military may have rebounded to become the second most powerful in the world, behind only the United States" The united states... the most powerful military in the world... i doubt that very very much. Im sure if the US went to war with china they would be screwed because of the population of china.. and there is no way that the US army is as competent as alot of the armies in Europe.
    • richnojutsu, on 08/23/2008, -1/+6You're wrong. About everything.

      http://www.globalfirepower.com/
      • cyberdork, on 08/23/2008, -1/+3Doesn't seem to take into account that Russia has about 8000 tactical nuclear weapons more than the US. As well as a more advanced ICBM system than the US. And don't forget their ABM system around Moscow which is already operational for 30+ years.

        People have to realize there is no such thing as a conventional war between Russia and the US, it will always turn nuclear.
      • tacojohn48, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2Cyberdork - at some point having more nukes is pointless. The United States has enough nukes in its arsenal to destroy all life on Earth. Also ABM systems are pretty useless against nuclear fall out.
      • mike17032, on 08/24/2008, -0/+2Jesus christ Russia has a lot of ***** tanks.
    • qazew, on 08/23/2008, -1/+4china zerg
    • dedknedy, on 08/23/2008, -1/+2As the worlds current only superpower, we have far more influence on other nations than China does. I guess if we were fighting a head-to-head sword and shield ground war against China, than yeah we're at a disadvantage. China's got more man power than anyone else, but as it stands today they can't hold a candle to the might of our air force and naval capabilities. The USA's air force and navy are far more powerful than ANY other country's in the world.

      www.globalfirepower.com
      • mrigns, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1Well, combine EU firepower then.
      • medfreak, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1Well naval capabilities are going to be a thing of the past in the next world war. Everyone will focus on submarines, and Air Carriers are going to be neutralized quickly. In terms of Air force, the Russian air defense systems are far better than the US air defense systems. S-400 pawns an Patriot out there. In ground war far I think both are tough as hell, the US would have an edge over the Russians though, and China would have an edge on both.

        In Air superiority, the US would edge both, until the Russians start mass producing their next 5th gen Air superiority fighter, then it is anyone's game.
      • Benoldays, on 08/24/2008, -0/+0You guys are neglegting a couple of vital points. Wars between two roughly equal powers (in this case two of the following: USA, Russia, China) are won on two things, the mentality and morale of a nation as a whole and the amount of production it can safely produce/obtain at any one time.

        The mentality and morale of a nation dictates how long a war can be fought before the leadership/military is undermined from within (think 1940 British "stiff upper lip" during WW2 Vs 1960's American "Flower power" during Vietnam).

        Production speaks for itself, winning a war against a major power is not about your current military hardware, its about producing enough hardware to cover your loses as well as producing additional hardware to create new units.
        Nazi germany wasnt defeated by one spectacular military manouver, overtime they simply ran out of vital equipment and the men to operate that equipment. In essence they were out spent. US Tank production alone was twice that of Germany.

        So in the end the most important number on the globalfirepower website is this one:

        Chinese Labor Force: 803,300,000

        If china can survive the initial stages of a war (say the first year) and get their production up and running, I doubt they could be stopped by anything less then alot of nuclear strikes.
    • Badandy127, on 08/23/2008, -2/+2You have no clue what you're talking about.
    • tommyjames, on 08/23/2008, -2/+2im pretty sure your all american and proud of your country, but the british forces are far more competent than than the US forces, In air, water and ground. i just cant personally see the US army as a singular army (forgetting what influences they have) as the most powerful army on earth.
    • likewhateeever, on 08/24/2008, -0/+2The US has far & away the most powerful military in the world ... If they *really* decide to take the gloves off they'll pretty much crush any country they go up against . ( I'm not an American )
  • monkeyrun, on 08/23/2008, -1/+2I see that they are quite efficient.
  • SammyStephens, on 08/23/2008, -18/+4NUKE MOSCOW
  • sochee, on 08/23/2008, -6/+33I'm moving to Australia.
  • 9bpm9, on 08/23/2008, -10/+7With what money?
    • cyberdork, on 08/23/2008, -1/+18I guess you don't know that Russia is the 2nd biggest exporter of oil and the worlds biggest exporter of natural gas. And you know that Moscow is the city with the most millionaires, yes more than NYC.

      The people in the Russian countryside are *****, but the government swims in money.
      • cmackattack, on 08/23/2008, -0/+5"The people in the Russian countryside are *****, but the government swims in money."

        Sounds awfully familiar...almost american I'd say...
  • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/23/2008, -5/+3Strong enough to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan maybe? They owe us a favor as we got them free of the Taliban, remember!!
    • dlk289, on 08/24/2008, -0/+0The Taliban wasn't in Iraq until we crippled there government. Recruiting Iraq's for there cause was probably pretty easy since we killed so many civilians. We lite out the dark sky over Baghdad with our bombs blasts during the invasion. I believe the death count is around 100,000, although the majority of deaths are not a result of our military.
  • gasoline, on 08/23/2008, -14/+14Russians just announced that their next main battle tank will be T-90 (by 2025), which is derived from T-72, which was derived from T-62, which is derived from T-55, which was DESIGNED DURING WWII. And it was a pretty ***** design in the first place.

    It's like the USA announcing that the next main battle tank will be an updated version of Sherman. Come on, guys.
    • cyberdork, on 08/23/2008, -5/+22Yes, because Nazi Germany proved that the country with the most advanced weapons systems always wins.... oh wait...
      • redcatalina, on 08/23/2008, -3/+22They came damn close to it, all the while taking on pretty much the entire rest of the world.
      • gasoline, on 08/23/2008, -6/+3If Russians had fought with weapons from the American Civil War, then Germany would have won.
      • error2k2, on 08/23/2008, -4/+3Germany sent a lot of tanks to fight British and Commonwealth forces in Northern Africa. Others to invade Mediterranean countries like Greece. And then kept others in reserve in France and Norway in case of invasion.

        What the f**k were they thinking?
      • solid12345, on 08/23/2008, -8/+6The Nazis almost had Moscow, the Russians aren't as strong as everyone thinks they are and it was reinforcements of Central Asian and Siberian people who basically saved it from doom in World War 2.
      • megaloid, on 08/23/2008, -0/+7Actually, in certain categories of equipment, the Russians were comparable or better off than the Germans at the beginning of the war. Their T-34 tanks are absolute juggernauts by 1941 standards, their artillery guns were excellent, and many of their combat aircraft were at least in the same league if not better, although those "Sturmovik" attack planes had no rival in any theater of the war.

        The real problem for the Russians was Stalin, whose purges robbed the Russian military of their best officers. Germany never could have launched a successful attack on the Soviet Union had it not already been so weakened.
    • AfrikaKorps, on 08/23/2008, -0/+11Uh last time I checked the T-90 has been in production since 1995, so I have no idea where you got 2025 from. And most of those tank designs were pretty good in their respective years, maybe not so much now of course.
    • caveman84, on 08/23/2008, -0/+7What r u talking about? T 34 was the dopest tank on earth during WW2, it pretty much helped Soviets win the war,
    • kelt65, on 08/24/2008, -0/+2@redcatalinaredcatalina :
      no, they did not even come close. Germany lost horribly in WW2
      • joanrolling, on 08/26/2008, -0/+2T34 is the best medium tank of the WW2
        German Tiger and other tanks wich were produced by F.Porsche and Maybach were the best in the heavy sector.
        I think t80, t90 are very good tanks and US, Israel and Germany tanks are the best. During the Prohorovka battle, the middle life of the tank was 4 minutes. (From the 10th shool grade lessons)
    • SiXiam, on 08/27/2008, -0/+2The Russians like naming things in sequence.

      The US has things the blackbird, hornet, bird of prey.

      Russia keeps things named in sequence; especialy the jets.

      Mig 22, Mig 23, Mig 30, etc. It doesn't mean its the same as the first Mig...
    • RightHand, on 08/28/2008, -0/+1"derived from T-55, which was DESIGNED DURING WWII."

      Was that the tank that WON WW2 in Europe? Wasn't as good as the German tanks but then the Russian numbers counted. Was it Kursh where the greatest tank battle EVER happened?

      The American tanks were sightly ahead of the British coffins against one 88.
  • midwestn9ne, on 08/23/2008, -15/+71A military observation ...

    Many journalists reporting on the present situation in Georgia use
    standard phrases expressing Russian "power" and "might" etc. But if the
    photographs show the present state of the Russian army, then it is not
    in a good state at all. For first-class Russian frontline units, there
    is strange mixture of obsolete and semi-obsolete armoured vehicles, with
    tanks in particular ranging from truly ancient T-54s to mid-life T-70s
    smothered in reactive armour. The use of this appliqui armour alone
    shows somewhat primitive tank thinking as compare to up-to-date Western
    models. Reactive armour is a cheap and cheerful form interim anti-tank
    protection pending the arrival of new tank models, and never used on
    Western tanks. Ceramic Cobham armour is used on Challenger 2 and
    Abrahams tanks, and the Russians appear not to have developed this.
    Also, it is surprising for a first-class tank unit to have some of its
    vehicles show appliqui armour whilst others show no such things. Also
    there appears to have been no attempt by lackadaisical tank crews to
    camouflage their vehicles and break up profiles.

    The Russian transport, mainly, 1960s-design Ural trucks, is equally as
    ancient, and their thinly-armoured BTR armoured personnel carriers are
    of a model which hardly compares as with such advanced vehicles as the
    British Warrior, the US Bradley, or the US state-of-the-art Stryker
    vehicles, all of which which sprout multi-tasking aerials all over the
    place. On the Russian BTRs, here is no sign of anti-RPG bar armour, and
    absolutely no sign of mine-protected vehicles which have proved so
    necessary in Iraq. The Russians columns appear not to be alert as
    concerns mines or possible ambushes. The single aerials installed on all
    vehicles show that the internal VHF communications suites are almost of
    1960s standard.

    The state of the Russian infantry as observed is even more worrying.
    Their uniforms are not standard, their vehicle discipline looks casual,
    and the foot deployment of infantry is sloppy, with rifle and kit not
    properly adjusted, with Kalshnikovs pointing all over the place.
    Frankly, it is enough to make a British Sergeant-Major go *****. Also,
    the infantry have no body armour (or even steel helmets), and lacking
    man pack aerials, appear to have no good communications kit at all.

    The age range of some of the Russian infantry must also be worrying to
    Russian trainers and instructors. I have seen men of well over thirty in
    infantry sections, and any number of over-plump tummies on display.
    There is also a racial mix which must present problems to any basic
    training programme as concerns language difficulties. Infantry appear in
    particular are drawn from every conceivable area in Russia, which must
    make for training and co-ordination difficulties.

    Frankly, on detailed technical observation, this display the Russian
    army shows it appearing to have sunk to a third-world standard which
    only succeeded in this case by confronting a numerically inferior force.
    If the Russians had any alert propaganda sense at all, on this spotlight
    occasion, they would have fielded a modern elite force instead of the
    dog's breakfast as observed. On this evidence, goodness only knows what
    their second line units are like.

    Colin Bennett
    Author, London
    The New Fortean Times
    • JoeVet, on 08/23/2008, -9/+13Not to mention that the Russian air force has a poor ability to hit targets and Russia lost planes to a poorly equiped little country like Georgia even though Georgia does not have an air defense system. The Russians have made a poor showing with outdated equipment. They would be no match at all for any modern army.
    • AfrikaKorps, on 08/23/2008, -6/+10Excellent analysis, I wish more people could read this.
    • ks136, on 08/23/2008, -8/+5Your analysis really educated me on this subject. Excellent writing, thank you.
    • donkz, on 08/23/2008, -5/+5non-standard military uniform is a serious crack in one country's defense system
      "The age range of some of the Russian infantry must also be worrying to
      Russian trainers and instructors" ... that forgot to mention the fact that Russia has 2-year mandatory military service, so most of its male population are in active reserve...

      Good copy/paste otherwsie

      The only disadvantage of Russian armed forced is that they don't establish environments for themselves to test out new military technology, unlike one other country in comparrison we all think of.
    • ccL1, on 08/23/2008, -6/+16Colin Bennett is an idiot, and I'll tell you why. The Russians used T-70s primarily against the Georgians. T-70s are being PHASED OUT of the Russian military (wikipedia it), as the T-80s are now the Russian standard. Russia has more T-80s than T-70s. The T-80s weren't used at all. Russia beat Georgia with their out-dated tanks. Meanwhile, the T-70s will be completely phased out by 2010, when Russia will introduce T-90 tanks into their military.

      I doubt Colin Bennett did even a pitiful amount of research for that dumb article of his.
      • cornerback42, on 08/23/2008, -5/+6@ CCL1: You refuted 1 of about 11 points in his argument. I still say he is winning it.

        Interesting analysis, nonetheless.
    • djoobacca, on 08/23/2008, -4/+10Colin Bennett = joke. His writing shows ignorance of Russian military.
    • richmomz, on 08/23/2008, -2/+14Utter rubbish. The author seems to imply that Russia's more modern material (such as T-80s, newer fighter aircraft, etc.) have somehow magically devolved into 1960's era equipment. The fact is that Russia sent in their JV team to deal with Georgia for a couple of reasons. One, Russia's more modern equipment (anything post-Afghanistan) has never been seen in a conflict environment and they probably want it to stay that way so the west cannot observe their performance and counter them. Second, it was to send a clear message that even old, obsolete equipment, if effectively employed, is still to be feared - akin to someone tying one arm behind their back to add insult to injury in a fight. Most of the equipment they used is destined for the scrapyard in the next few years anyway, so any losses incurred would be completely inconsequential. Finally, Russia's military budget is only 3% of what the U.S. spends on its military every year (yet somehow they seem to make that small amount stretch much further than we do, probably due to the fact that they don't add on tons of useless pork-barrel project equipment on everything they make like we do).
      • megaloid, on 08/23/2008, -0/+5I thought maybe the Russians were also using this conflict as a means of giving their professional junior officers and NCO's some combat experience, evaluating combat performance of "average"-quality formations, testing certain categories of stored munitions to determine the percentage of duds, and so forth. Basically, it is a training exercise except one with large numbers of actual dead bodies. The better to prepare for the campaigns to follow, but let us hope that there are few of those.
      • WindReaver, on 08/24/2008, -1/+5We spend so much because we make the expensive high-tech weapon systems. The government foots the bill for the R&D and then the companies that make them sell them to the rest of the world.
    • jameskong15, on 08/23/2008, -2/+6Seems like that is basing a lot off the current photos, but did it ever cross the writer's mind that Russia would use their old ***** rather than their new ***** against a non-factor like Georgia? I mean realistically, why risk losing good tanks when you can use those which are being phased out? Why risk using bombs that have current day aimers when you can use old ones that will stop working sooner than later?
    • kernel16, on 08/23/2008, -0/+5I always felt Russian engineers were simple minded (in a good way), it was really made apparent when I saw a documentary on the creator of the AK-47 and his thinking behind the making of this timeless weapon. They basically see a problem and solve it simply to achieve what it needs to be done, nothing more or less. You can see this in many of their space technology. Nothing fancy, just effective in what it's purpose, and I think that's why they can do more with the little budget they have. They probably have no intention to build a force to take on actions around the world, but only that of inside Russia and surrounding areas, they also probably have no intentions on creating a billion$+ aircraft that looks to be designed to take on aliens than normal forces.
    • ks136, on 08/23/2008, -2/+2Why the hell am I being dugg down for this? Oh, screw it, never mind...
    • meteors, on 08/24/2008, -1/+1From what I have read, the Georgian army performed surprisingly well given the impossible odds.

      Regarding mismatched uniforms, etc., remember also that during the first 24-36 hours, the only Russian troops fighting there were the peacekeepers.

      Ironicaly, it seems there would have been fewer civilian casualties if the Russian peacekeepers didn't need to rely so much on their multi-barrel rocket launcher, which was among the few weapons their force had.
  • lowfive5, on 08/23/2008, -2/+7I hope "Jessica B" doesn't read this article...
  • 3leggedHorse, on 08/23/2008, -1/+18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_n ...
    That just about sums it up.
  • Obzerva, on 08/23/2008, -17/+14Russia *may* have the 2nd strongest military behind the US, but it's a long way behind. Take the F-22 for example. The raptor guarantees air superiority in any airspace. F-15's can't match the F-22, let alone any Russian MIGs. In a non-nuclear military conflict, the US wins hands down.
    • 223Sniper, on 08/23/2008, -9/+3so you're going to have the entire war plan based on the F-22 alone? you noob. BTW the F15 is still one bad ass fighter that will match any mig.
      • 1gunners4, on 08/23/2008, -2/+7No jet in the world matches the F-15 and won't for years, and the F-15 doesn't hold a candle to the F-22... which is his point. Air Superiority means everything in the modern battlefield; hold all the ground you want, but if you can't keep our planes from bombing the ***** out of your columns, you won't last long.
    • Jhiaxuz, on 08/23/2008, -2/+5Yes, but that's all in theory. Look at past and present battles like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Just because you have the best gear does not mean the enemy will give up. They evolve and adapt their guerrilla tactics with the advancement of technology so that they can bring their disadvantage to an advantage.

      Furthermore, second strongest is still strong enough to ***** up the planet. I doubt that if World War III broke out between the two that there would be no way in hell any air craft could take out every missile silo in Russia capable of launching an ICBM.

      Just because they don't nuke America does not mean they are incapable at doing it to someone else which will yield the same global consequences.
      • meteors, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1That's one reason the Russians won't ever get rid of their entire nuclear arsenal. It's their only really credible threat.
    • djoobacca, on 08/23/2008, -2/+1[citation needed]
    • cornerback42, on 08/23/2008, -0/+6Yeah because having the F22 is winning us wars all around the globe. Get outta here with that crap, the real wars will be fought on the ground with smarter and more intelligent soldiers that can train/adapt/morph into the culture and surroundings they are fighting in. Technology will help that but having a big fast plane in the sky isnt gonna do ***** to people who hate your guts and hide in dodgy hard to find caves/meeting places. It's nice to have when your fighting some planes but all in all it only makes another country want to build something even better.
    • richmomz, on 08/23/2008, -1/+10Until the F-22 is battle tested we won't know for sure. People used to say that our stealth aircraft were untouchable... until one got shot down in Bosnia with a cold war era SAM. Also factor in that the F-22 is incredibly expensive - at $140 million EACH you could build half a squadron of MiG-29s or Su-35s for the same cost.
      • megaloid, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1Spend a few million more on ballistic missiles to plaster those Raptors on the ground at their huge, fixed airbases.
      • meteors, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1I don't think it has ever been proven what downed the F-117 over Serbia. (not Bosnia btw)
      • richmomz, on 08/25/2008, -0/+1From Wikipedia: "One F-117 has been lost in combat, to the Yugoslav Army. On 27 March 1999, during the Kosovo War, the 3rd Battalion of the 250th Missile Brigade under the command of Colonel Zoltan Dani, equipped with the Isayev S-125 'Neva' (NATO designation SA-3 'Goa') anti-aircraft missile system, downed a F-117A callsign "Vega 31," serial number 82-806 with a Serbian improved Neva-M missile."
    • xander, on 08/23/2008, -2/+4Irrelevant, S300/S400 neutralize US air supremacy.
  • BotchaMcCoola, on 08/23/2008, -7/+2Bush did not send any NATO military assistance did he? Likely he won't do anything when they take out the Polish missile bases either. He thinks they are way strong obviously.
  • dcolomvakos, on 08/23/2008, -4/+2I highly recommend watching "the Putin system"

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2415519262 ...

    part 2 is where things get really interesting
    • cerwin18, on 08/23/2008, -3/+0you mean theres a part 2?? who has 53 + minutes
  • else7en, on 08/23/2008, -8/+17buried

    fearmongering
  • dha07030, on 08/23/2008, -17/+8Reading these comments makes me sick. If you want to see America fall so badly then why don't you A) leave the county if you live here. B) Do something to make it happen.
  • shylove, on 08/23/2008, -4/+6Strong enough to be taken seriously as should all other countries as a matter of fact. Strong enough that threats and intimidation are useless and only reflect back on us.
    Strong enough that their point of view should be looked at and accorded respect just like any other country. Strong enough for our military industrial complex to use as an excuse for more and more spending and irrational fear. Strong enough that we should realize that being the world's only super power is just a case of being the world's biggest blowhard and braggart. Just because we made God in our image doesn't mean God is on our side. Maybe instead we should realize war is a false profit!!
  • Antz0rz, on 08/23/2008, -5/+53US Intelligence has also discovered that russians, infact, speak russian.
    • polumrak, on 08/23/2008, -1/+3No we don't.
      • ltethe, on 08/23/2008, -1/+1And unfortunately...

        US MILITARY Intelligence, is usually behind US Intelligence...

        Sigh... None of us are smarter then a 5th grader...

        ARE WE?

        :-P
  • pitdog, on 08/23/2008, -4/+3The question should be: how stupid is Russia. And the US for that matter. Along with other nuclear powers...
  • naszaklasa, on 08/23/2008, -5/+6Russians don't know what they have in there with the corruption and all. They might be the strongest in the world.

    Anyway, they don't need bullets and machinery. Their soldiers will run to battle without being armed because they will be killed by their own anyway (as in WWII).
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 08/23/2008, -6/+14Gates and the Reagan administration lied about the strength of the Soviet Union for years. I'd read a report from a defecting soviet general who said that the Soviets at the time couldn't invade a small town. 90% of the military didn't speak Russian, and other than the equipment used in parades and stuck in Afghanistan, they couldn't hold a supply line to mount any extended attack.

    Let's take whatever this administration says with a grain of salt. Chances are, their Number 1 consideration is political and scaring the public. They still have that errand boy Gates as well. He still isn't worth trusting.

    But the Russians have nukes. They also aren't going to play around with Bush if he wants to put weapons on their borders. I predict that either there is going to be another major invasion, or Cuba is going to get nukes again. Boy, what a bunch of theater Karl Rove has cooked up for November. Hopefully, people won't pick Republicans to solve the problems -- of course they LOOK able to deal with these issues -- because they are the ones that created them in the first place.
    • derzhava, on 08/23/2008, -2/+690% of the Soviet military couldn't speak Russian, the country's official language, despite the fact that you'd need to know Russian to get past grade school? And you believe this crap?

      Couldn't invade a small town? Dear God Americans are gullible.
      • AfrikaKorps, on 08/23/2008, -1/+2Well the Soviet military had troops from all around the region, not just Russia, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 08/23/2008, -0/+4The more you know....

        Yes. In the 1980's of the Soviet forces, approximately 90% did not speak Russian -- that was in defiance and because most of these nations were occupied. The Cheks were stationed with the East Germans, the East Germans with the poles -- things like that. Not a picture of a solid military.

        So in 2008, you find another thing that we have been lied to about.
      • meteors, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1It's not controversial that Regan overdramatized the state of the USSR. The truth was obvious to anyone who travelled there at the time.
  • ydns, on 08/23/2008, -2/+4like bull?
  • 223Sniper, on 08/23/2008, -2/+4red dawn.
    • JanYpe, on 08/23/2008, -1/+3WOLVERINES!
    • joeblo, on 08/23/2008, -1/+0your 40 miles behind enemy lines, smack dab in the middle of World War III.
  • icndvl, on 08/23/2008, -2/+2We really need those defensive missiles Iran's hidden transcontinental nukes! Now that's something worth starting a war with Russia over...
  • kingUssop, on 08/23/2008, -1/+22Hi, we're the mainstream media. Please read our latest article designed to scare your pants off about Russia. We were wrong about Iraq, extremely suspect in doing nothing to hinder GWB's monster of a career, but won't you please listen? Fear and weapons sell.
    • megaloid, on 08/23/2008, -0/+3(Brought to you by Lockheed Martin.)
  • Bannedx5, on 08/23/2008, -9/+3LOL. Look at what "Russia" failed to accomplish during their war with afghanistan. Look at what we accomplished. Sure we're not done and theirs some insurgency but we steam rolled over those Afghanis in a year what Russia couldn't do in it's entire campaign during their prime. The US full of combat hardened soldiers would roll over those chumps like NOTHING. All the tools in our arsenal were made for this conflict. The Apache vs ***** T72 and T60. The M1A1 Abrhams... lol It wouldn't even be a contest. That being said, we'd be a victim of our own success, and the soviet union would be forced to use Nuclear weapons. Tactical or otherwise.
    • empirefalling, on 08/23/2008, -8/+7The US has accomplished nothing in Afghanistan nor Iraq with the exception of 3,100,000 murdered civilians by US soldiers and their killing machines. The US did accomplish World scorn, condemnation and isolation and for it's citizens and economy for the deaths of innocent men, women and children and the utter destruction of two societies that had no capability to attack anything anywhere.
    • djoobacca, on 08/23/2008, -1/+5US is doing better in Afghanistan because 1) Soviets destroyed Afghanistan 2) there is no major power training and equipping Afghanistan's terrorists like US did.

      By the way, US pretty much lost the war in Iraq and Afghanistan anyway.
      • feeldarhythme, on 08/25/2008, -0/+41) What do you mean by destroying? Yes there were bombings of cities, terrorist bases, villages, that was war after all. US army does it too. But Soviets also invested a hell lot of money on restoration of Afghanistan. They built roads, hospitals, even factories and power plants. Does Usa do it? Dunno.
        2) Hell yes. Russians never supported terrorists there like America did.
      • joanrolling, on 08/26/2008, -0/+2I dont know what USSR found there, in Afganistan, but I'm sure that US sponsored and learned all guys, who became the terrorists number 1, 2 etc. short-sightedness maybe.
  • thedogfatherx, on 08/23/2008, -12/+7What a stupid question. Russia is strong. Very strong. Always has been.
  • trumpcard, on 08/23/2008, -13/+1Russia is a wuss,bomb it.
    • Lephisto, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2Yeah they got nukes thats WMD right their bush should invade! /sarcasm!
  • empirefalling, on 08/23/2008, -16/+6 Russian military forces are by far the strongest in world. Military training of Russian troops far surpasses that of any US military personnel. US military personnel are slothful, corrupt, iniquitous and unmanageable. The best example of US military capability in decline can be readily seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. US military forces are bogged down in a war against the civilian populations of those countries in which the US can not “win“. US troops have committed murder, rape, torture and are insidiously disrespectful of local culture and religions not only in the countries that they illegally occupy , but in countries where US troops are stationed .

    Strategically, the Russians are in a much better military position in the way of allies in important areas of the Globe. The US has very few “friends” in the World Body and those allies have become disillusioned with the US over the last 20 years. The US is isolated and economically so weak that it can not engage in another military campaign without collapsing into complete ruin.
    • gasoline, on 08/23/2008, -1/+3Here's an example of the "far superior training":
      A few years ago Su-27 fighter crashed in ANOTHER country, caused by lack of competence by the pilot, who was considered to be elite by Russian Air Force.

      See:
      http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Russian_fighter_crash_ ...

      From the article:
      "Currently, in the cash-strapped Russian army, pilots, such as major Mr. Troyanov, fly only several hours a year - about 15 times less than NATO pilots."

      The pilot had flown only 16 hours that year, which is far less than required to maintain basic flying skills, not to mention combat skills. Compare that with USAF pilots fly, who about 250 hours a year, or with Israelis, who fly 300-400 hrs.
      • empirefalling, on 08/23/2008, -6/+1While US troops scout for isolated Iraqi women and small girls to rape and murder and round up Iraqi men folk to be sent to US prisons to be tortured and eventually executed for crimes against "American Democracy".
      • gasoline, on 08/23/2008, -1/+5Excuse me, but are you on any medication?
      • AfrikaKorps, on 08/23/2008, -1/+3I love how you just disregard what gasoline said and start spewing out random *****.
    • cakesecret, on 08/23/2008, -3/+4Spoken like a first class communist moron. Take your sick nationalism and carry it back with you to the USSR.
      • empirefalling, on 08/23/2008, -4/+2You will not fit well in the new US society that will be established after November 2008. Pity.
    • ratrace, on 08/23/2008, -1/+3Sure empirefalling, in Bizzarro World I'm sure your analysis is accurate. But in this dimension, the exact opposite is in fact the case.
    • ratrace, on 08/23/2008, -1/+1Russia is watched with fear and suspicion by all of its neighbors. It has only a handful of significant allies around the world. To top it all off, they just tipped their hand to the EU about the mortal danger of increasing or even continuing their dependence on Russia for natural gas.

      Their recent show of "force" in Georgia proves their military capability about as much as our "invasion" of Grenada proved our military capability back in the 80's. Not so much.
    • lowjeep, on 08/23/2008, -1/+3Don't feed the TROLL!!!!
    • fjinnw, on 08/23/2008, -2/+1American sucks, they never win in any war.
  • whorunbartertwn, on 08/23/2008, -5/+1Hey on the bright side let Russia waste a lot of money maintaining a military presence in another country too.
  • bigcynic, on 08/23/2008, -1/+9Reality check! There's quite a gap between invading Georgia and world domination.

    As VitriolAndAngstVitriolAndAngst already wrote, our military-industrial complex-dominated government lied about Soviet strength for years. Right up until the Soviet Union collapsed, Reagan was claiming they were a military powerhouse. After the collapse, the "experts" just said, "Oops. Bad intelligence" -- just like after Iraq. Now the same military-industrial complex-dominated government is trying to portray Russia as a military powerhouse again. As Reagan would say, "There you go again."
  • AchaIemoipas, on 08/23/2008, -11/+3Russia has a lot of fire power, but they're incredibly dumb and disorganized.

    Their like a really strong fighter that doesn't have any kind of technique. Like Bob Sapp if you will.

    Distract them with shiny objects and you won.
    • cryptomystic, on 08/23/2008, -0/+4This has the to be the dumbest comment I have ever read on Digg.

      Are you the guy who posted on Yahoo answers the question: "how is babby formed"?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 99 of 99 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.