digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Russia-China war games [pics]

news.bbc.co.uk — Russia and China stage massive joint military exercise.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • homerj14, on 10/10/2007, -37/+31I am all for our miltary but those 2 powers against us would surely destroy us
    • Conwaysb0718, on 10/10/2007, -29/+29Care to elaborate on that? We have the most advanced military in the world. If the U.S. ever really fought a war and stopped this politician mandated fighting of "one armed tied behind the back" there isnt a force on earth that could handle the might of the combined branches of the United States military. It would boggle your mind what they are capable of doing in so little time.
      • drallafi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+64There's no winner in a nuclear war.
        • Hawking, on 10/10/2007, -5/+33Thread over.
        • Prathik89, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1.. you're forgetting the zombies.
        • godplaysdnd, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1I don't know about you but I'm hoping to get some super mutant powers.
          • BattleScars, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1The reality is you'll either get vaporised instantly, riddled through by broken glass and debris or, failing that, leukemia followed by 6 months of agony and inevitable death. Sorry, no X-ray vision :(
      • byrdgang, on 10/10/2007, -7/+15Then why is it taking such a long time to battle insurgents in Iraq? If all this "we're hella mighty" talk really is true, the insurgents would have been knocked out in a few days after the insurgency began (through the army overwhelming the insurgents with all of its "might").

        The US Army has lots of resources, but your resources are only as good as the people behind them. I am no military expert, but despite the advanced army the US has, Vietnam was able to put up on hell of a fight. I say Vietnam lasted so long because of its endurance and will. Compare the resources of the two countries, and you'll see the US has a lot more. So why did the US give up at one point? Maybe the Vietnamese weren't going to give up.
        • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Well the problem is somebody in the US military feels there is a need to arm the enemy, to make it a fair fight.
        • elnerdo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24Because we're fighting a mostly-nonexistant enemy in Iraq. Even with the biggest gun in the world, you still can't kill your shadow.
        • richmondphotog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5the us army is not an ideal police force.
          • sabach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's true, but the army has a very capable and professional Military Police force who should be the ones in Iraq now, not regulars, reservists and national guard.
        • falstaff, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Since WWII, so country has attacked the US on our soil. All the wars since then have involved us sending troops halfway across the globe to be the "aggressors." War itself has become so political that we fought all those wars with kid gloves on. It's not about winning, it's about pacifying the enemy in such a way that we aren't complete monsters on every news station in the world. Even now in Iraq, if there were sufficient motivation to end it with victory, it could be over in a matter of weeks, but the cost would be so high (politically, socially, financially) that it's not a good option right now.

          If the US were ever attacked at home, and it was a fight-or-die situation, the kid gloves would come off. There would be no talk of minimizing "collateral damage," or wetting our pants about civilian infrastructure. A true WWIII would be ugly, and whoever started it would severely regret it.
          • mallardtheduck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I really hope the US military would be concerned about collateral damage in a battle on their *own territory*.
            Seriously, I don't think even a wartime government would hold out for long if the military were killing friendly civilians.
      • Julz, on 10/10/2007, -11/+31if America couldn't win the Vietnam war how the HELL to do u think you could win a war against China and Russia.... get over urself
        • elnerdo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14A war against an actual military is very different than a war against guerilla forces.
          • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Ok then. Korea. Who was it who popped into the north for coffee and sent the US and everyone else packing?
          • vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Actually, you are correct. Technically China is the only nation that has beat the US in a conventional battle that forced a non-win (stalemate)

            The Germans beat the Americans a few times in Africa, but lost the Battle of the Bulge. However, China over ran most US positions and almost caused a total defeat in Korea. Some say MacArthur was about to authorize nukes, but they were able to stop the push south.
          • schlurp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The US never really fought anybody their own size anyway. And before you bring up the germans - the US didn't actually fight them until after they were beaten by the russians.

            Russia + China would be about 5x their size (but still a lot less military spending even combined)
          • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2@ schlurp - cause digg forgot to find out what "threading" actually means before they did their stupid interpretation of it...
            What about Japan? They might be a foot smaller and their country about the size of a farm in Ioho, but man-for-man the numbers must have been close?
        • ap0c1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So basically, it means that there are a variety of wars. And just having muscle power is not going to do anything in the long run. Otherwise the bully in my neighborhood would have been the king here!
      • KidVicious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+26Underestimating your enemy is a dangerous mistake to make. No one knows what kind of advancements Russia or China could be making behind closed doors. Plus, they're already nuclear superpowers; the end-all be-all of country to country intimidation.
        • datastorageguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't forget the stealth fighter began production in the 1970s and are going to be retired very shortly due to the F-22 coming into service. We are actually retiring aircraft that both the Russians and Chinese are years away from making if at all.

          I do agree with you that underestimating an enemy is dangerous, however.
      • meatmcguffin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Don't forget that a large army or the most expensive army isn't necessarily the best army.

        The second highest funded army in the World is the UK's which is very small compared to America and China in terms of manpower but it means that the amount spent per soldier is a lot, lot higher and a lot of countries follow this pattern : well trained, highly armoured troops as opposed to sheer volume.
      • Millsee, on 10/10/2007, -8/+17Put politely, you are a thick ***** *****.

        Remember NAM? Yes, you guys are certainly doing well in Iraq..

        You'd have no chance against either... If Bush was so bothered about 'threats' in the world, don't you think your "War President" would have tried it on with China by now? He doesn't want to start on a bigger bully... you'd be *****.
        • Conwaysb0718, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7They lost Nam because the politicians did not let the military do their job. They made decisions that should have been made by generals. Politicians should not make tactical decisions... Which is exactly what is happening now in Iraq, as I stated the first time. And bush wouldnt want to take an unprovoked swipe at China right now because the U.S. is fiscally and productively tied to them right now. A bad place to be, but thats the reality of the situation.
          • sanman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5And why are the Taliban and AlQaeda still running around in Afghanistan and Iraq?
            Sounds like the US has a way of redefining "victory" when it can't score one.
          • stklaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@sanman
            Let's say a bunch of foreign people with really big guns came to rule your homeland and ***** your wife.
            What would you do?
      • vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14The US would basically be able to pull a Pearl Harbor on both the Russians and Chinese and dominate the skies, seas, and land for about 6-12 months.

        But any full scale war that lasts longer than 12 months would put us at a disadvantage strategically.

        1. Trained Manpower

        We rely on a well trained but very small in comparison volunteer army. The US army would break after 500,000 casualties without a draft and as we have seen in other wars as soon was we start drafting then we get lower quality troops.

        2. Our oil reserves would be in danger.

        China would have Russia to fall back on and out of all nations Russia is one of the few who actually exports oil. Considering that the middle east in missile range of both China and Russia, they could destroy the oil resources in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The US would be forced to occupy Venezuela tying down badly needed troops needed in Korea/Japan and Poland.

        Even then that isn't preventing the Venuzelans from destroying the refinderies and oil drills they have in place. It would take us months to get them up and running.

        If that happened we'd have no more than 6 months fuel left for the US. We'd be able to produce synthetic oil well enough to keep our tanks, jets, and ships up and running but the whole US economy would collapse without enough gasoline. Then there would be no more money to fund the war and military complex would collapse in on itself.

        Althought it would be interesting if the US could pull together for "Total War" in which people worked in factories for free like they would in Soviet Era WWII Russia, but I don't know how that is going fly and even if we did win a white peace or one that favors the US we'd be bankrupt for a century.

        There is a lot more than just beating an enemy on the battlefield. If that was all that was needed, Germany would have won WWII hands down since it had superior training and equipment.

        But they didn't have enough fuel nor manpower to keep up with the Soviets and Allies. That is why they lost.
        • godplaysdnd, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0you seem to forget that both sides have nukes. nobody wins here. except maybe the australians.
      • ThatEvilGuy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4LOL at all of you thinking the war is going so long cause the US can't win over Iraq or even vietman, the war goes as long as contractors and weapons manufacturers want.

        scumbag businessman decide how long the war goes.

        The sole purpose of the war = $$$

        If there truly was a war to death it'd be over in a matter of hours. Everybody would just nuke the ***** out of each other.
        • 2reflective, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Exactly. TheWarOnTerror was never designed to be won. It was designed to drag on for decades, making many people rich along the way and allowing the US to build huge military bases in Iraq to use as a launch pad against the rest of the Middle East. And people wonder why the US military never had an exit plan...
      • thatsmyaibo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What you all are forgetting though, is since WWII, America has never fought a full blown war. Since then the US has only gone on missions to police countries of the bad people, use TACTICAL air strikes and fight mainly on foot. If it came to a war in which an actually country (rather then a terrorist organization) were to attack, the US has what it takes to level the rest of the world. Russia was crippled by the downfall of the USSR, what makes you think we could take them down? It's a matter of morals now, not capabilities.
      • datastorageguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The Korean war was a UN "police action", Vietnam was not a war, it was a conflict that was fought by the likes of McNamara and politicians. In WW2, when we were attacked, and we HAD to win to ensure our survival as a nation, this country was able to engage both the Japanese in the pacific and the Germans in Europe and ensure victory for ourselves and our allies.

        If we were to be attacked in such a way again, I assure you that this country would do the same thing to any adversary on this planet and then go back to our day jobs and make alot of babies when it's over.
    • SickFinga, on 10/10/2007, -8/+33China alone can strangle US economically enough that it will be 1991 again, but this time it will be USA. And once that happens, I doubt US would have enough money to even cross the ocean. Digg me down all you want, but you know it's true.
      • elnerdo, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7That works the other way around, too. The US alone can strangle China economically, enough that it will be 1991 again.
      • ap0c1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Let them strangle each other. I am off to Australia. Whoosh!
        • Murdats, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1actually china buys most of australias resources.
          if china goes down, the world goes down.
        • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Australia's been one of the USA's closest allies since the early days. If push ever came to shove Australia would be right there alongside the USA as we have for many decades. Not only that, Australia has had the draft and would undoubtably implement it again if it was deemed necessary.

          Costa Rica is the place to be. Not having an army really limits any involvement you might have in a war. It also greatly reduces the chance of being drafted.
      • allan17, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Why digg elnerdo down? China needs the US. China doesn't make anything that can't be made somewhere else. If the US stopped trading with China, it would only hurt them in the short term.
    • hmunkey, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Actually as it is, China cannot strangle our economy... yet. In 30 years they will probably have the economic power to do so. You also forget that if China and Russia both attacker America at once, our government would likely resort to WMDs. Once half of the Chinese population is dead they will have to stop.
      • mikehosek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Im not sure if your aware of this, but Russia and China both have WMDs too. Russia might even have the biggest stockpile. Anyhow this is not important because they would never go to war for the simple fact that it will cause the end of the world and would benefit no one.
      • schlurp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Well what a relief that the russians and chinese don't have WMDs - oh wait.
      • godplaysdnd, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0I'm pretty sure the if the US nukes China or Russia they'd have no problem with nuking us back.
    • Sep11insidejob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6It's a tie cause they all the capability of destroying everyone with all the nukes they have.
    • onimusha115, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5People who are digging this guy down are way too pro American, and are delusional to think that russia and china together is not a threat. Hell china alone is a threat, they are booming economically, have massive amounts of resources and people. If china were to stop shipping to the US our economy would be hurting. Lets just hope bush is out of office before he goes on some rampage over there thinking we need to fight them before they attack his daddy or some other bs.
    • ChileanGoD, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Seeing a lot of you guys argue, bragging and get exited on what army could destroy who just makes me loose most of my hopes for human survival in the future.
  • archer104, on 10/10/2007, -6/+57Oh yeah, well we have Mexico! Aw who am I kidding? We just hang around them to look less fat.
  • Pericle, on 10/10/2007, -9/+24Where's USA? Wait... USA is the enemy!
  • treelovinhippie, on 10/10/2007, -19/+28Why do countries have to showoff their military power all the time?

    Good work! You have all these big pointy weapons, and expendable soldiers, and spend billions, upon billions of dollars essentially promoting violence. Yay! (/sarcasm)

    If I ran a country I'd be showing off our awesome education system, health system, multicultural haven, environmental activities, community focus, aid work, responsible foreign policies, responsible internal policies, that we don't scare our people by making up "wars" (drugs, terrorism), that our political parties actually make an effort to work together to make the country a better place, that we don't treat our citizens like criminals (big brother, 'terrorist' prejudice, censorship), that we do have a very clear and distinct separation between church and state, etc etc etc etc etc
    • Conwaysb0718, on 10/10/2007, -8/+38And you'd get conquered in a half second and enslaved. Then you can use your awesome education to increase the power & money of your new warmongering overlords. Not everyone has a live and let live set of beliefs. "To secure peace is to prepare for war." There's a reason animals dont ***** around with the porcupine.
      • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Actually there is little evidence of this. Historically it has always been war mongering nations that end up conquered because they are a threat to their neighbours. Switzerland tend to do well out of neutrality.

        //edit - not that we shouldn't invest in the military but a lot of the military action taken today is entirely superfluous.//
        • elnerdo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Switzerland also has a military, though.
          • OisinT, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1yeah, but they're a neutral country.... meaning they dont get involved in wars. I think that was the point. There's nothing wrong with having a military, "but a lot of the military action taken today is entirely superfluous"
          • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Indeed. Like I pointed out below. The difference is between being warmongering retards who declare war at the drop of a hat and having a military but avoiding fighting unless forced to. The best approach is a strong army, diplomacy and a refusal to take sides.
        • Prathik89, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Switzerland's RICH. SUPER RICH not as in materials or resources rich, but as in cold hard rich
      • SkippySkip, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Switzerland is in the mountains and is therefore near impossible to attack successfully. It remains neutral because it can: no one wants to attack such a natural fortress.
      • redfox2600, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Animals still ***** with porcupines, they're not very successful but they still ***** with them.
        http://digg.com/environment/Pit_Bull_vs_Porcupine_1347_Quills_to_the_Snout_OUCH
    • AlexGrant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Because the most primitive and basic purpose of a government is to tax the people so they can provide a military/protection. One would hope they were at least competent in this task. However, it will have to become a thing of the past at some point.
    • Homunculiheaded, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Actually I would argue that display of military power can help to prevent actual military escalation. Animals in the wild do this same type of posturing, showing threatening fangs, growingly, puffing themselves up. All of this is actually to hopefully avoid conflict by demonstrating to possible aggressors that engagement was not worth the effort and potential risks.

      Whenever the military is really concerned with the destruction of it's enemy it instantly becomes silent and secretive (think Manhattan project). This posturing exercises show that, while we are in a time of heightened aggression, major powers are actually working to avoid military engagement, just like animals in the wild do.
      • miriclaire, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It works for me...all this recent posturing by Russia has be scared...I don't think our Canadian ice-breakers will be enough to hold them back. We'd have to just let them through, charge admission and a damage deposit.
      • Bossy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2wow, you are comparing humans to animals that live in wilderness?
        Humanity has come very far, we should be way past beyond wars.
    • phrantakle, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Wow, I'm surprised you don't have more diggs. It's pretty obvious that if the kind of money that is spent (worldwide) on armed forces was spent on education, the world would be a better place. By far the majority of human beings just want to be able to live a decent life and have a family, not invade other countries. The only reason you actually get wars and crazy explosions going on is pretty much down to a lack of education, or a very bad or biased one. (The same kind of education that makes some of you think having lots of bombs is crucial to your survival.)
    • jdaniel284, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5I quit reading your post at the "multicultural haven" mark.
      • miriclaire, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Canada is a multicultural haven--sorta.
        • MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Won't someone please think of the mooses?!
    • joe5ie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6This place exists, its called the European Union...
    • hfactor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It´s a shame you don´t have 100 diggs. Apparently, America still prefers a gun and a cowboy hat to a world worth living in...
    • zenmechanic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Welcome to Canada my friend. The beer is cold, grab one and stay a while.
    • YashkaExpozhko, on 08/10/2008, -0/+0your media propaganda show this so do not be so ignorant
      stop talk rubbish wake up and open your blinkers that's how Germans become Fascists and remember what happened with them.
      here couple of links for your education:
      http://yashkaexpozhko.wordpress.com/
      http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28788/video

  • professor0fruit, on 10/10/2007, -2/+27If you've ever been in the military you would know that we do stuff like that all the time. We've been training with Japanese for the past 20 years and countless other countries also.
    • KidVicious, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6We do it with our allies, right? This is notable because it shows they are willing to come together to fight with each other against a common foe. Someone like the USA, perhaps.
      • schlurp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4The US should stop asking for it by building that missile "shield" against Iran (ha, ha) in europe.
        Remember the US reaction when the russians shipped a few nukes to Cuba? But if the US does something way more threatening they expect the russians to shrug it off.
        • jimbob3636, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Nukes aren't a defensive weapon. Their sole purpose is to destroy civilian targets.

          btw I agree with your point. You just should have used a better example
    • annenk38, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1From what I can tell on the pics it's a dog and pony show. Typically, actual exercises are shrouded in secrecy. Many of our own joint exercises are secret. S2 people would collect all of our cameras, the convoy would set out at night and drive for many hours choking in dust. Only people with maps and gps would actually know where we are.
  • crackah, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2Wonder how many soldiers died in helicopter accidents. Those Mi's are terrible.
    • drallafi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Mil's are terrible but the maintenance was in the 1990's when the Rus army didn't have enough funding.
      • drallafi, on 12/20/2007, -0/+0Hah, took me 4 moths to notice those damn typos. I ment to say "Mils aren't terrible..."
  • atdigg, on 10/10/2007, -6/+27That reminds me that Soviet Union held war games with Hitler's Germany (before it was invaded) -- it looks like they didn't learn anything...
    • kelchm, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9You do realize that we ourselves conduct war games [with other countries] all the time, don't you?
    • 7Mystery, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1True, but the Soviets pretty much made China
      • phavn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Your history is very weak, go back to elementary school
  • H8terAid, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2People...can we please stop repeating ***** in DIGG...this was on here yesterday
    • miriclaire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But not these comments--I come by for the comments. I always get a laugh--AND i usually learn something new, as well.
  • Mysticum, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8Every country with an active military participates in "war games," and the United States from which most of you people hail is CERTAINLY no exception. What is the big deal about this particular exercise? Are you going to start bombing all the countries that insolently dare keep their armed forces trained? Jesus Christ, you people should be ashamed of yourselves. Buried for lameness.
    • freebsdmike, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4If you notice that's a link to a UK article (it's the BBC). No one in the USA really gives a ***** and from the link apparently no one in the UK does either. It's in the world news section and surprise it is world news. It's not like their OMFG WTF we're all gonna die. It's just pictures and captions. You should be ashamed of your self for being stupid.
      • Mysticum, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I'm not responding to the article itself, but the posts above my own.
        • Prathik89, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1.. hit reply.
        • freebsdmike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Then I apologize for making hasty assumptions and calling you stupid.
  • apollomurga, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Kazakhstan anyone?
    • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9They have emergency plans to attack the capital of Uzbekistan with their catapults.
      • schlurp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4they are actually shovelling the $s right now thanks to high oil prices (and their superior potassium)
  • 7Mystery, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Jintao...Wasn't that the name of Rush Hour's bad guy?
  • Ninnux, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5I've been on exercises like this where VIP's look on. They're called dog-and-pony shows. This is mainly a political move by Putin to reassure his people that they still have military legitimacy around the world. In a sense, they do because they sit on a lot of oil. And now they are in bed with China for crucial sino-oil deals, they legitimacy builds.

    You will see more of this kind of posturing. They both know we are weak now in this area, and they are taking advantage of this. This is the gam.
  • KidVicious, on 10/10/2007, -8/+33Our strained military vs Russia AND China? Holy ***** we are *****.
    • ap0c1, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12And soon our arms will come from China. And they will make it such that it fires backwards! We are in big *****!
      • miriclaire, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Maybe they'll just lace them with poison. I always say, if China wanted to go to war with the US, they need only poison the food imports, toys, toothpaste...ooops.
    • bbardlbradd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Even if the US wasn't worn out from beating up the middle east, Russia and China would own us. Especially if they invaded the US from Mexico, and used South America as a little base camp. We'd lose a ***** of imports, the Panama canal would be closed, so no more oil for the east coast from Alaska/California...

      I wonder... what would Mexico do if China+Russia came marching up their streets one day...
      • MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"...what would Mexico do..."

        Welcome the tourist income? It'd be just like the poverty-stricken Koreans when the US (et al) showed up... All of a sudden there are tons of menial labor jobs they could perform for very little (relatively) money, and they absolutely loved it.
    • benjaminmktn121, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Dude. stop giving them ideas.
    • parirami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1that invasion scenario has been thought of already and its going to be risky. it's actually better to start producing arms at cheap ass labor rates and start exporting rather than invading. besides with chinese boom towns all over the US, who needs invasion? they;re here :P it;s just political posturing over central asia - the one place the US don't control.
  • 7Mystery, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7"In the exercise scenario, the town was being held by Americans." :)
    • benjaminmktn121, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"In the exercise scenario, the town was America"
    • godplaysdnd, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0then we find out it wasn't an exercise.
  • Ziggygallaway, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5So, this is a little "orwellian" to me. In preparation for the possible "pull-out" of forces from Iraq (depending on the new administrations stance- when elected) We need a new enemy- recent news articles- "Poutin 'Cold war sabre banging" "China against US Foreign policies"- Now their playing war together... hhmmm.

    (Story headlines paraphrased so please don't attack for accuracy.)
  • TheDHC, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2practice makes perfect
    • bbardlbradd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Practice makes progress...

      Or just wasteful entertainment.
  • thePheonix9, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Poor school-a.
  • patientXero, on 10/10/2007, -6/+17The American government is more or less completely unpredictable right now and bordering on a fascist state. We're probably scaring the ***** out of the bastards.
    • ray4389, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Before throwing out buzz words, learn the definition--fascism essentially means large corporations running the government. The U.S. has been fascist for years, we are NOT bordering it, and that does not make us like Hitler like your trying to get at...

      It just means the total good is more important than the individual, but I beg to differ with all the minority special interest groups and welfare programs that actually hurts much of the U.S.
      • sfackler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You should actually LEARN the definition of fascism before telling other people to. The RIGHT definition is "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." (from dictionary.com). Do you honestly think that German companies were running Hitler's government?
    • miriclaire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Certainly scaring the ***** out of their own people.
  • bumblefoot, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12more sabre rattling from Russia and China

    wish we'd stop this military strength rubbish and just get along with each other
    • trer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Maybe they are sabre rattling, but the USA is the only country currently invading another...Iraq
  • Millsee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Just buy them both an xbox 360, and save the poor people's income tax
  • Coolwaters, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Thank God we're ***** around in Iraq and Iran instead of dealing with the countries with electricity and *cough* inter-continental ***** weapons.

    We need Reagan, but Ron Paul would do in a pinch. This is a pinch.
    • JeremyRobertsen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2:) I noticed you coughed about the ICBM.
    • UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Buried for Reagan.
    • MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1We sure as hell need *somebody* to save us. Sadly, I think Ron Paul may be our best hope. I love the guy, but let's face it: he'll never make it.
  • JeremyRobertsen, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7If it is an exercise to show the United States that they are able to defend that area. More power to them. The United States has no business, whatsoever, in that arena...especially to try and rob the area of energy. Under no circumstances is this to be taken, immediately, as an act of war. The U.S. needs to seriously reconsider how it handles foreign policy. We shouldnt be complacent about this event, but considering all of the other wonderful things that are transpiring. Chinese lead painted toys, Russia seeking strategics in the arctic, U.S. poking around in Iraq, North Korea developing Nukes. The world is headed in only one direction. W W 3. It's coming folks. And, it will be fought on all levels. That is a very terrifying notion...
    • UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This paranoid fool just might be right...
    • ray4389, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2And what is the U.S. doing with this "robbed" energy? Shut the ***** up before making hollow statements.

      You are right, we are on the brink of WW3, but the world is always on the brink of war *shrug*
    • parirami, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1hasty conclusion. buried for fear-mongering and misplaced paranoia
  • krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3If Russia wants to prove its politics are not retarded and military no longer completely useless why doesn't it help USA finish up in Afghanistan instead of just flying around and setting off a bunch of smoke bombs?
    • Stirk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You realize that the USA also does military exercises with allies, right?
      • krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Oh yeah!, and I'm not nearly complaining about that. But Russia's military has recently been seriously embarrassed by Afghanistan. If Putin wants to show that his country is able to implement any functional change he has the most perfect opportunity.
    • PH423R, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2For one it could be that they've already had some bad experiences in Afghanistan.
    • sfackler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe because they learned from their experiences in Afghanistan?
  • buildmorerobots, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5sh!t, how dope is the 7 picture of the fighter jet.
    • soil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Dugg for using the word "dope" in a sentence, post 1990.
    • Prathik89, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I saved the pic. Anyone have a bigger resolution?
  • pennvneff, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Vladimir Putin and Hu Jintao must love the fact we Americans decided on electing that dumbass George W. for two straight terms.

    Thanks George for involving my country in an unnecessary war thereby depleting our resources and making us weaker, while ***** like Putin and Jintao just sit back and wait.
    • ray4389, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Our resources? We have plenty...and money doesn't matter

      There is no proof that debt of a country affects the economy.
      • pennvneff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Whatever dumbass that's why Gen. Douglas Lute considering bringing back the draft huh?

        Know what the ***** your talking about before you pipe up again son.
    • krz9000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3actually they didn't just sit around...they spend all the money they get from the exports to the US and elsewhere to strengthen their military in a way never seen before.
  • kriminalintent, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Dont they play Call of duty?
  • gibsonic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1queue map of nuclear weapons count.

    whose gonna lose again?!
  • Displace, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Anybody actually read the captions to realize they're counter-terrorism war games?
    • pennvneff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Ex-KGB ***** like Putin don't hold counter-terrorism war games, they plot.
  • allan17, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6To those saying that the US can't even handle Afghanistan / Iraq - Don't forget how badly the Russians ***** up when they went into Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#Official_Soviet_personnel_strengths_and_casualties

    In a more conventional war, the US would perform much better.
    • trer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If war was "conventional", then it wouldn't be a war. It would be a boxing match. There are no rules in war. When people are trying to kill each other, anything goes.
    • parirami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1historically however, the USA struggles from a protracted and unpopular war. Without any popular support, conventional war or not, the USA is bound to not go in a war while there are other already prolonged wars going on. The US may perform better, but not necessarily win, in this case. Iraq, for instance is a good military performance, but never a win.
    • godplaysdnd, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0The only reason why America is doing better is because the Russians aren't supplying them with high tech weaponry. The Soviets got raped because the CIA sold the muslims a bunch of crazy ***** that Islamic Jihadists are now using against us.
  • bbardlbradd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2These pictures remind me sooo much of Operation Flashpoint.
  • skinturtle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Don't worry about Russia. They will eventually gear up for a fight and start moving south. However they will be walking right into their own destruction.

    Mark my words.
    • parirami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2not really. Historically, Russia fights best within his own territory and using proxy wars. Russia won't move. It's just political posturing.
    • godplaysdnd, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0doubt it
  • Downtime, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2"Massive joint military exercise"????

    6,000 troops is massive? Buried for inaccurate.
    • parirami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1massive as far as between the 2 countries is concerned. it;s a media spin duh. political message.
  • scottman666, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Must... Crush... Capitalism...
    • trer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1China is more capitalist than the U.S. You still think this is 1955?
  • cyberdogg, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3As a patriotic American who hates Bush-Cheney Administration packed with Neocon Zionist cabal, I support Shanghai Cooperation Organization in its brute response to USA/Israel's eventual attack on Iran and Syria's sovereignties.

    Bush America needs to have its meddling paw crushed and its tail booted out of the Middle East and Central Asia.

    Why do you think Bush Admin designated Revolutionary Guards 'terrorist' and providing 30 billion in foreign aid to Israel to keep arming that rogue state?

    Bring on World War III. USA is the Fourth Reich and Zionist Israel will be steamrolled by the SCO forces. USA is already an imperialistic empire and it must be humiliated after it screws with Iran trying to grab energy reserves that Russia and China have large stakes in from the deals sealed with Iran.

    Don't ***** with SCO, America!
  • algo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3yea, back to the story, the 7th picture in the series is amazing.
  • monkeyrun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5And Breaking News: President of Russia and China .... had .... LUNCH !!!
    • MellerTime, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Those bastards, let's invade and get it over with!
  • Tobruk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"Wolverines!"
  • soil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Anyone else think of this?

    http://www.digg.com/offbeat_news/Chinese_Scale_Model_of_Mountain_Range_for_Military_Training

  • empirefalling, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Your country is rapidly becoming a mirror of Fascist Germany of the 1930’s. Alliances are being created by Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan , many Asian, European and South American countries against your government and it’s militaristic Nazi itinerary. Do you wish to risk a global war over your racist , imperialistic way of life? Do you wish to see an invasion of your homeland in order to stop, by offensive means, your fall into fascism? You still have the ability to revolutionize your current direction and trounce your current Nazi regime and replace it with one more subjugated to the will of the World Body. Instead of crying to the Moon for water, start now and change yourselves, save yourselves from the coming offensive by the above Alliances that could wipe out much of the hope of what America was meant to be. Vote correctly in your upcoming elections. Remove your current way of thinking and ways of destruction and become one with the rest of the Globe........
    • patch6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'd prefer a regime that is subjugated to the will of the constituents, and not to foreign sovereignties.

      What you're proposing is nothing less than a world government, which would be far worse than what exists now.
      For such a governance to exist, nation-states would have to sacrifice their own sovereignties to it. The public will have even less representation within it, and there will be no inherent rights given.

      The policy-making for such an agenda is occuring behind closed doors (NAU and SPP are two examples), and the public has no say whatsoever in it. Even being able to see the details alone require FOIA requests, and that still results in mostly-blanked out data, though what little is available is still damning.

      Article 29, subsection 3 of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" states that "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." This alone circumvents all of the former and latter articles within the bill, and renders all "rights" contained to privileges.

      That is a small example of what a world government will entail.
      • there, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The US wasn't always a nation you know. Even ancient Greece was a collection of city states. Look at the progress Europe has made after centuries of non-stop wars. Tribes,.. .towns... ..cities... feudal kingdoms... nations.... the path of history seems inevitably to be marching towards global government (be it the UN or what comes after it)

        The alarmists think it would be oppressive but I see no reason for this unless we vote it so. It would be much the same as it is now except we have one extra vote. Global government would mean free travel, free trade, less racism, standardization.. which leads to greater economic efficiency, a higher standard of living for poor countries and the end of the perpetual threat of nuclear armageddon between nations.

        Not at all a bad trade off in my book.

        I would do it in a heartbeat but unfortunately too many people still think in terms of collectivist tribes and gangs of cavemen rather than a sensible "human interests".
        • patch6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The policy making occurs behind closed doors, and the old colonial families backing it aren't exactly benevolent.
    • freedomwv, on 02/15/2008, -0/+0You sound like a commie. That is not cool. America was meant to be a free society based on the ideas of liberty. Right now America is having some problems with its leaders. Not to worry we the people will handle those scum bags soon enough. We are not a nation that will bend the will of any nation or for the matter be under the control of any nation except our own people.
  • zip000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Putin looks like he's made of plastic.
  • IzeBuko, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0No one can defeat China in the next few years!
    • there, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Given growth trends, America does seem likely to lose its supreme superpower crown in about 20-30 years. However, while China gets all the attention India might end up as the dark horse winner. (They have a competitive advantage in that everyone speaks English.)

      In either scenario though.... due to their massive numerical superiority, much like Britain lost the superpower title to America around a century ago, it appears unlikely anyone will be able to out produce these two emerging superpowers for centuries to come. (at least not as a single nation)
    • parirami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1dugg down for fanboyism
  • ycomp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0am I the only one that thinks the Chinese and Russian Economies are interlinked with THE REST OF THE WORLD (which includes the United States)?
  • NymphoChik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The Russians and Chinese, no doubt, are preparing for this...

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=1_I4WgBfETc

    God help us!!
  • jimmiss, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The next war, will be like WW2. The US will be like Germany with it's far superior technology, military, and money; and the rest of the world will be the allies. What nation on earth would fight alongside the US in a battle against another international power? There are no first world countries the US could attack without being ganged up on.
    • there, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2 This is why Bush is a retard by callously throwing aside international relations through unilateral action and pissing off the UN. He's painting America in the role of an aggressive expansionist Soviet Union... and we all know what happened to them.

      What the "tough guy" far fight just doesn't get is that a military won't save them if they continue to piss off people both internally and externally. The Soviets had the largest nuclear weapons stockpile in the world (even more than the US) and they still went down for the count when they imploded from within.

      All the signs are there for it to happen in America too. All its going to take is one more major financial collapse (ala depression) for people to finally get fed up with the militaristic shenanigans of the far right. (Incidentally I'm not supportive of far left either... political moderation is the way to go)
  • randal2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1our saviors! circa 2010... wait and see... heh (sarcasm tag in heavy use here!)
  • pigfister, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1with the way that the usa is trying to push its laws on every country or threaten them with wto blocks and sanction i'm far from surprised that other countries are making sure the oppressive & warmongering usa is not the world law!
  • Barbarino, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1We got the WOPR and they don't. Game over you commie bastards.
  • cosmikdebris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I've just added a new post with regard to this.

    http://digg.com/world_news/Russia_China_May_Form_Warsaw_Pact_2
  • brundlefly76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I definitely don't like the way those two are looking at the scale model of North Carolina.
  • walastika, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wargames? Looks like they're playing warhammer 40k to me.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 60 of 60 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.