Ameriacn drone was shoot down by a Russian jet over Black Sea.

[RetiredGySgt]

The question is, has Russia come to realize that the mutually agreed upon limitations of the war could be tying their hands behind their backs?

America is in fact waging war against Russia while Russia is still agreeing to not fight back.
If you're really a retired sergeant, you should understand what I'm suggesting.

proxy war is the norm has been since the end of WW2 and the advent of nuclear weapons. If you were as smart as you claim you are you would know that. The soviets did it in Vietnam and we did it in Afghanistan. Grow up dumb ass.

 

[Silver Cat]

Thanks, I was wondering?
For some reason it reminded me of the cruise missile that flew into the Chinese embassy through a window.

And I'm also wondering if Russia thinks they can win this war against America? I sure hope not. Nobody loses if they're sitting on the two biggest nuclear arsenals in the world.

AFAIK, they believe they can wipe out (by their first counter-force strike) enough of American nukes, and then intercept significant part of American retaliation strike and then - save people with their EMERCOM.

Right now they estimate potential losses lesser than 10 millions, which is "significant, but acceptable" for them.

 

[Sunni Man]

actually since Russia is LOSING I would say they havent learned much.

I still haven't figured out how anyone can seriously believe Russia is losing.
Even the Ukrainian propaganda spin ministry admits the Russian army is slowly and steadily advancing westward.

 

[Donald H]

proxy war is the norm has been since the end of WW2 and the advent of nuclear weapons. If you were as smart as you claim you are you would know that. The soviets did it in Vietnam and we did it in Afghanistan. Grow up dumb ass.

Proxy wars have never been waged against a formidable foe smart sergeant.

And if you think that Vietnam or Afghanistan were proxy wars then you're not as smwart as I thought!

Wasn't America directly involved in fighting both of those?

Every night at six they showed the pictures, and counted up the score or or orrrrr!

 

[Donald H]

AFAIK, they believe they can wipe out (by their first counter-force strike) enough of American nukes, and then intercept significant part of American retaliation strike and then - save people with their EMERCOM.

Right now they estimate potential losses lesser than 10 millions, which is "significant, but acceptable" for them.

I hadn't heard any of that. Where are you posting from? I'm a Canadian.

If Russia is really contemplating a need for nuclear war, let's just hope not!

We've never gotten into speculating on the winner of a nuclear war on this board, on account of it being the unthinkable. And I don't want to open the can of worms by saying that Russia would appear to have some advantage. It's still unthinkable.

On conventional war, Ritter and maybe Magregor too have suggested that America wouldn't win it. However, even a discussion on conventional war still opens the same can of worms in the end.

Welcome to the discussion! It's good to see the number of rational posters possibly outnumbering the boneheads!

 

[Donald H]

I still haven't figured out how anyone can seriously believe Russia is losing.
Even the Ukrainian propaganda spin ministry acknowledges the Russian army is steadily advancing westward.

Right on that at least!

Then there is the suggestion that Russia is in fact fighting against America already? However, that doesn't include America's full might with conventional weapons.

Ritter and Macgregor take that into consideration too, and the details can only be known to those who payed attention. I'm not going to bring the details here.

 

[Concerned American]

The problem is that they also do what they want. And too many of them want to fight the USA.

It would be interesting to know if it was in Russian air space off of Crimea.

 

[Concerned American]

It's good to see the number of rational posters possibly outnumbering the boneheads!

Yup, you are definitely outnumbered, duck.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Proxy wars have never been waged against a formidable foe smart sergeant.

And if you think that Vietnam or Afghanistan were proxy wars then you're not as smwart as I thought!

Wasn't America directly involved in fighting both of those?

Every night at six they showed the pictures, and counted up the score or or orrrrr!

we armed the afghans when the soviets fought them NUMBNUTS. and in Vietnam the Soviets armed the North Vietnamese. You really are ignorant.

 

[Donald H]

we armed the afghans when the soviets fought them NUMBNUTS. and in Vietnam the Soviets armed the North Vietnamese. You really are ignorant.

Yeah I know. I thought for a minute there that America was fighting in Vietnam and Afghanistan, but lucky for having you!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yeah I know. I thought for a minute there that America was fighting in Vietnam and Afghanistan, but lucky for having you!

RETARD in the 80's we armed them against the Soviets. Can you be anymore stupid? And in Korea and Vietnam the Soviets armed our enemies against us.

 

[Silver Cat]

proxy war is the norm has been since the end of WW2 and the advent of nuclear weapons. If you were as smart as you claim you are you would know that. The soviets did it in Vietnam and we did it in Afghanistan. Grow up dumb ass.

Proxy war is norm when:
a) Mainlands of the sides are not endangered too much (otherwise see Cuban Missile Crisis) and now Russian mainlands are endangered.
b) Nuclear arsenals are more or less equal (but now the Russians are nuclear upperdogs).

 

[Silver Cat]

It would be interesting to know if it was in Russian air space off of Crimea.

No. It was quite far from it.

 

[Silver Cat]

Right on that at least!

Then there is the suggestion that Russia is in fact fighting against America already? However, that doesn't include America's full might with conventional weapons.

Ritter and Macgregor take that into consideration too, and the details can only be known to those who payed attention. I'm not going to bring the details here.

Russia is not going fight a 'conventional war' against NATO. Actually, there is no such thing in their doctrine at all.
There are four types of conflict they define:
1) 'Military operation' (that what is the current level in Ukraine), to achieve 'limited goals'.
2) 'Local war' against one or few small countries, fought by conventional weapon.
3) 'Regional war' - against few states of one region (like Europe) , they use conventional and nuclear weapon;
4) 'Large scale war' against states from more than one region (like Europe and North America) - they use everything.

 

[Silver Cat]

The non-proliferation treaties are about nuclear WEAPONS, not nuclear powerplants or nuclear-powered ships.

Technically, yes. But nuclear engines for submarines demand highly enriched Uranium. Even more enriched than necessary for nuclear weapons.

 

[Concerned American]

No. It was quite far from it.
View attachment 765749

Doesn't look like it was in the normal internationally recognized air space if the airplane icons are any indication. Meh, it says that the US took it down after the collision and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a US ship there to recover it.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Where was the American drone shot down, near Crimea or near Florida?

The Black Sea is international waters and airspace. American ships and aircraft have just as much right to be there as Russian ships and aircraft do.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Proxy wars have never been waged against a formidable foe smart sergeant.

And if you think that Vietnam or Afghanistan were proxy wars then you're not as smwart as I thought!

Wasn't America directly involved in fighting both of those?

Every night at six they showed the pictures, and counted up the score or or orrrrr!

As usual you are being an idiot. The Soviets and Chinese were supporting their proxy The People' Republic of Vietnam in its war against the Republic of Vietnam and the USA which was supporting the RVN.
In Afghanistan, the USA was supporting its proxies in their fight against the Soviet installed and supported People's Afghan Party's government.
So, yes, both the Vietnam and Afghan Wars were proxy wars.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Technically, yes. But nuclear engines for submarines demand highly enriched Uranium. Even more enriched than necessary for nuclear weapons.

No they don't. They use the same fuel land-based reactors use.

 

[Donald H]

As usual you are being an idiot. The Soviets and Chinese were supporting their proxy The People' Republic of Vietnam in its war against the Republic of Vietnam and the USA which was supporting the RVN.
In Afghanistan, the USA was supporting its proxies in their fight against the Soviet installed and supported People's Afghan Party's government.
So, yes, both the Vietnam and Afghan Wars were proxy wars.

Awwww gee, now I know I'm wrong about America fighting in the Vietnam war and the Afghanistan war. I coulda swore!