We gonna ignore this?

In the meantime US nukes are 60's tech and everyone ignored it until Trump, the only one in America to tell real situation and trying to fix it, while media and liberals keep insulting him.

Nobody cares

Kys please

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 11.03.2018 at 18:03

The people of AtWar aren't smart enough to realize there are countries out there other than the States building impressive military hardware. Even Brazil were building some impressive MBT's but because their country is a shitholepovo they failed in producing them. What I am really looking forward to seeing is how the Russian military will be able to utilize the T-14 armata, I think it will be awhile before that tech will be perfected and that's on top of the military being able to use them... They are far too high tech and entirely new for current drivers to use them effectively. I could go on about other countries and their impressive up and coming tech but no one is gonna understand anyway xD

Kirjoittanut Domo, 12.03.2018 at 01:08

Kys please

Horrible thing to say, then i looked at your location and wasn't surprised.

Kirjoittanut Guest, 12.03.2018 at 05:13

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 11.03.2018 at 18:03

The people of AtWar aren't smart enough to realize there are countries out there other than the States building impressive military hardware. Even Brazil were building some impressive MBT's but because their country is a shitholepovo they failed in producing them. What I am really looking forward to seeing is how the Russian military will be able to utilize the T-14 armata, I think it will be awhile before that tech will be perfected and that's on top of the military being able to use them... They are far too high tech and entirely new for current drivers to use them effectively. I could go on about other countries and their impressive up and coming tech but no one is gonna understand anyway xD

Problem with Russian tech is that scientists are best on the world, but technicians and mechanics are drunk punks, so when tech like Armata leave factory, it fails because technicians don't maintain it properly. It's chronic in Russia. Few days ago An-2 plane crashed in Syria, killing 20-30 troops, reason: you guessed it, technical failure, because drunk mechanic didn't check it probably before take off. So better to check equipment of special forces, or special units like VDV, GRU, FSB than regular army, that equipment should be second-class simply because bad personel assigned.

And yes, i was surprised as well about Brazil, they have good tech, i remember Russia was buying Brazilian engines for Gaz Tigr (russian humvee) and helicopters (forgot which one, i think kamov ka-50 or mil mi-28). But again, it is 'stupid' to be surprised about Brazil, they are large country so of course they have such things, they are not really that bad as portraited in the media.

PS: New Zealand have space company sending satellites to space, you are catching up

Yes

Hopefully they never get used

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 11.03.2018 at 18:03

In the meantime US nukes are 60's tech

So long as US can still nuke every part of Russia, the strategic aim of nuclear deterrence has been satisfied. Neither Russia nor US, however, was ever intending to employ a nuclear weapon in real life. The new breakthrough is impressive, but meaningless. It serves no purpose except continuing the current nuclear deterrence set up.

Russia's obsessive focus on nuclear power in its State of the Union Address indicate that Russia is more and more insecure about its regional and global superiority. Putin has to use nuclear weapons to divert his nationals from the fact that Russia is paling into insignificance in the international platform.

True powerhouse needs not showcase it's nuclear capacities to create fear. US never holds military parade but everyone reckons it as the strongest nation in the world. Only weak country fearing for it's own survival, e.g. North Korea, does so.

Keep bragging your useful but meaningless advancement and ignoring the deeper roots of Russia's problems. The consequence of the new missile is that it will encourage US to invent equivalent weapons or European countries to work together closer to set up more anti-ICBM missiles and conventional weapons. Both cases won't favor Russia.

Kirjoittanut Dragon, 12.03.2018 at 11:35

So long as US can still nuke every part of Russia, the strategic aim of nuclear deterrence has been satisfied.

Both America and Russia can nuke each other in every region of their territory.

Kirjoittanut Dragon, 12.03.2018 at 11:35

Neither Russia nor US, however, was ever intending to employ a nuclear weapon in real life. The new breakthrough is impressive, but meaningless. It serves no purpose except continuing the current nuclear deterrence set up.

Which is the whole point of Balance of Power, that guaranteed there will be no WW3 since 1945.

Kirjoittanut Dragon, 12.03.2018 at 11:35

Russia's obsessive focus on nuclear power in its State of the Union Address indicate that Russia is more and more insecure about its regional and global superiority. Putin has to use nuclear weapons to divert his nationals from the fact that Russia is paling into insignificance in the international platform.

Incorrect. Russia is obsessed with defense, just like any other normal country. Russia doesn't feel insecure, but threatened with NATO bases in Baltic, western russophobia, sanctions, kidnapping of Russian nationals and doping scandals created to ban Russian athletes from international competition.

Obsessive focus is US/EU/NATO on Russia, with elections meddling, panama papers, Hillary fondation, blacklisting people because they appear on non-american media platforms. All that without giving any proof, which even their own people find it laughable and mock their own government/establishment/deep state.

We can talk about all that, but i like more to talk about Baltic and NATO, as they can really defend it if Russia invades, and like Russia have interested in such small insignificant region. Just waiting NATO to say 'you see Russia didn't invade by now, because we're there', it will be cherry on the cake.

Kirjoittanut Dragon, 12.03.2018 at 11:35

True powerhouse needs not showcase it's nuclear capacities to create fear. US never holds military parade but everyone reckons it as the strongest nation in the world. Only weak country fearing for it's own survival, e.g. North Korea, does so.

Keep bragging your useful but meaningless advancement and ignoring the deeper roots of Russia's problems. The consequence of the new missile is that it will encourage US to invent equivalent weapons or European countries to work together closer to set up more anti-ICBM missiles and conventional weapons. Both cases won't favor Russia.

First, Russia hold military parades to remember and mark days and years when Russians fought in the past, in history, it bonds people. That's why America doesn't hold parades, because it is still young country without history and national unity on ethnic basis. It is mixture of various european, asian and south american cultures, unable to bond in such case as military parade and not see it as militarism. Hence your examples of 'weak countries fearing for survival' is wrong.

Find me one video where Putin says Russia is superpower. He said great power. Russia is focused on defence and rebuilding, not war and expansion. Clear proof is military budget and reforms. 70 billion dollars cannot fund expansion, and it is lower than saudi arabian budget, while 800,000 troops are equivalent of south korean army.

Videos clearly show Putin talks about defence and assymetrical warfare. And we see proofs now (kinzhal, avangard, atom cruise missile). And that openly shows it goes in Russias favor, when it needs 70 billion to achieve that and America need 700 billion. That's the point of bragging and boasting.

As long NATO encircle Russia, it will be clear Russia need nuclear power and not conventional strength to defend, and every historian remember the deal made with USSR that NATO will not go east of Germany, yet they did only decade later. So you have THE ONLY military alliance on this planet, breaking the deal, and has a record of invasions. Clear sign of aggressivness, so obviously healthy response would be defensive action.

Please research more about the topic if you really want to go this deep into it.

Hahaha

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 12.03.2018 at 09:12

PS: New Zealand have space company sending satellites to space, you are catching up

According to them they can launch satellites into space for only around 1/5 of the regular price. But im yet to see this, they've recently just leased a launch site so I guess we will see if they can live up to the hype.

My Dick is BIGGER than yours BIGGER than yours BIGGER than yours

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 12.03.2018 at 13:34

Kirjoittanut Dragon, 12.03.2018 at 11:35

So long as US can still nuke every part of Russia, the strategic aim of nuclear deterrence has been satisfied.

Both America and Russia can nuke each other in every region of their territory.

Kirjoittanut Dragon, 12.03.2018 at 11:35

Neither Russia nor US, however, was ever intending to employ a nuclear weapon in real life. The new breakthrough is impressive, but meaningless. It serves no purpose except continuing the current nuclear deterrence set up.

Which is the whole point of Balance of Power, that guaranteed there will be no WW3 since 1945.

Kirjoittanut Dragon, 12.03.2018 at 11:35

Russia's obsessive focus on nuclear power in its State of the Union Address indicate that Russia is more and more insecure about its regional and global superiority. Putin has to use nuclear weapons to divert his nationals from the fact that Russia is paling into insignificance in the international platform.

Incorrect. Russia is obsessed with defense, just like any other normal country. Russia doesn't feel insecure, but threatened with NATO bases in Baltic, western russophobia, sanctions, kidnapping of Russian nationals and doping scandals created to ban Russian athletes from international competition.

Obsessive focus is US/EU/NATO on Russia, with elections meddling, panama papers, Hillary fondation, blacklisting people because they appear on non-american media platforms. All that without giving any proof, which even their own people find it laughable and mock their own government/establishment/deep state.

We can talk about all that, but i like more to talk about Baltic and NATO, as they can really defend it if Russia invades, and like Russia have interested in such small insignificant region. Just waiting NATO to say 'you see Russia didn't invade by now, because we're there', it will be cherry on the cake.

Kirjoittanut Dragon, 12.03.2018 at 11:35

True powerhouse needs not showcase it's nuclear capacities to create fear. US never holds military parade but everyone reckons it as the strongest nation in the world. Only weak country fearing for it's own survival, e.g. North Korea, does so.

Keep bragging your useful but meaningless advancement and ignoring the deeper roots of Russia's problems. The consequence of the new missile is that it will encourage US to invent equivalent weapons or European countries to work together closer to set up more anti-ICBM missiles and conventional weapons. Both cases won't favor Russia.

First, Russia hold military parades to remember and mark days and years when Russians fought in the past, in history, it bonds people. That's why America doesn't hold parades, because it is still young country without history and national unity on ethnic basis. It is mixture of various european, asian and south american cultures, unable to bond in such case as military parade and not see it as militarism. Hence your examples of 'weak countries fearing for survival' is wrong.

Find me one video where Putin says Russia is superpower. He said great power. Russia is focused on defence and rebuilding, not war and expansion. Clear proof is military budget and reforms. 70 billion dollars cannot fund expansion, and it is lower than saudi arabian budget, while 800,000 troops are equivalent of south korean army.

Videos clearly show Putin talks about defence and assymetrical warfare. And we see proofs now (kinzhal, avangard, atom cruise missile). And that openly shows it goes in Russias favor, when it needs 70 billion to achieve that and America need 700 billion. That's the point of bragging and boasting.

As long NATO encircle Russia, it will be clear Russia need nuclear power and not conventional strength to defend, and every historian remember the deal made with USSR that NATO will not go east of Germany, yet they did only decade later. So you have THE ONLY military alliance on this planet, breaking the deal, and has a record of invasions. Clear sign of aggressivness, so obviously healthy response would be defensive action.

Please research more about the topic if you really want to go this deep into it.

Pfft remember when you "liberated" crimea because of oppressed russian minorities.

Kirjoittanut Guest, 12.03.2018 at 17:37

According to them they can launch satellites into space for only around 1/5 of the regular price. But im yet to see this, they've recently just leased a launch site so I guess we will see if they can live up to the hype.

Doesn't matter, you already beat Poland. They still cannot into space!

Btw, what would the range of these missiles be in atwar? If cruise missile is powered by nuclear energy, they say it have 100,000km range (i think that's 75,000 miles), is that 100 range in atwar haha, you could move that unit across the map and attack in single turn, then next turn enemy would just see his army is missing or halved and won't have a clue what happened.

Also, no one tried MIRV on atwar yet (not avangard), i guess that would be air transport unit with rocket avatar, capable of carrying 5-10 ground units with warhead avatar, with range 50-100

Kirjoittanut Witch-Doctor, 12.03.2018 at 23:27

Pfft remember when you "liberated" crimea because of oppressed russian minorities.

Fake news. Russians are majority in Crimea.

Are you still butthurt about that 4 years later? Accept you lost, your sphincter will relax.

'liberals' and 'liberal'ated crimea???? coincidence i think not. 'liberl' everywhere agenda