What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
427 Comments
- WOMPA, on 03/18/2009, -13/+172Summary of the article: Russia is upgrading old outdated hardware and training practices.
This is a non-story. - mdepaul, on 03/17/2009, -25/+165Wow, all the comments so far are retarded.
The real question is how Russia can actually pay for arms. They've been hit by the economic crisis as bad as anyone since Oil prices collapsed. - ChoosyMother, on 03/17/2009, -40/+176That's strange. Just as Obama wants to cut military spending they want to spend more... I wonder what this could mean?
- gader, on 03/18/2009, -9/+136Awsome! James Bond movies have sucked since the end of the cold war.
- inactive, on 03/18/2009, -13/+103I, for one, am all in favor of another Cold War. Oh sure, we nearly blew ourselves up, but it was great for science. Besides, I'm tired of us getting so worked up over a bunch of idiot terrorists. If we're going to live our lives cowering in fear, might as well have a real threat to worry about.
- JasonCox, on 03/18/2009, -7/+81That they're maybe trying to become a first-rate military force again, just like the US, something the Russians haven't been since the fall of the Soviet Union?
- borez, on 03/18/2009, -48/+121From the BBC 'Have Your Say' comments, and I must say, I couldn't agree more with this guy:
"Unfortunately I agree that Russia should rearm. How else can it keep pace with the American war machine?
Let’s face it: NATO is run by the USA.
Let’s face it: the UN Security Council is hamstrung by the US Veto.
It’s a rotten shame, but those countries that are not ready to protect themselves but that have resources that need protecting (like oil, precious minerals, and/or right-of-ways etc.) may very will find themselves the next target of America’s “liberation”. - UselessTrivia, on 03/18/2009, -1/+51Don't duck and cover just yet...we do pretty much the same thing.
Upgrading your strategic nuclear arsenal SOUNDS really bad but basically they're just going to refurbish their aging nuke stockpile...which hopefully also includes improving their security measures. You don't really want a bunch of 50 year old ill-maintained nukes sitting around in Russia do you?
We do pretty much the same thing. We refurb old warheads to keep them "fresh". The plutonium and uranium might last forever, but the rest of those components have a shelf life.
Also they've been talking about modernizing their military for years. It was definitely going to happen when oil was over 100 dollars a barrel, but these days they don't have the budget for what they want to do....so like I said...don't duck and cover just yet. - atomheartmother, on 03/17/2009, -24/+70"The world will love us," they proclaimed.
- LordRahl72, on 03/18/2009, -5/+47It means that Russia knows they sit on the worlds largest oil reserves and knows that there soon will be a day of reckoning.
Bad times are coming for this world not far down the road. - Dankenbring, on 03/18/2009, -0/+40mars
- Ymeg, on 03/18/2009, -14/+54Russia is not a third world country. They can get money if they want to.
- Ellipsys, on 03/18/2009, -1/+37Lets not freak out over this. We don't need to interpret everything Russia does as an implicit threat. Lets face it, Russian military equipment is still mostly left over gear from the 1980s, which is barely refreshed from 1960s models. If the USA was relying on 80's tech for their defense, people would likely be crying for blood. Everyone knows that Russian gear, if it doesn't break/rust/rot away, lasts pretty much forever with minimal maintenance (See: Kalashnikovs), but some of their stuff, like their equivalent of our Plum Island, and nuclear arsenal are in dangerous states of disrepair. Let them rebuild themselves, and don't give them any ***** about "why don't you just decomission all your weapons"? That's just as much of an insult as if people asked America to do the same thing, don't you think? Seriously, I can't wait until all these Red Scare Russian-fearing warmongers die. We don't need another cold war because we thought it would be fun to treat Russia like a child, about to be chastised. It is bad enough that NATO still pretends it is a quarter-century ago even though the primary reason for existing has vanished.
- Zaxcomp, on 03/18/2009, -6/+40That is the pot calling the kettle black. We interfere far more overtly all the time for our own [US] interests. Stop thinking we can be the world police.
- teh_spazz, on 03/18/2009, -5/+38Hamstrung by the US Veto? Did you forget Russia in on the Sec. Council too?
- angusm, on 03/18/2009, -8/+39Awesome ... we get a global depression _and_ a new cold war. It's like the best of the 1930s mixed in with the best of the 1970s. Hang tight, kids, as the whole planet goes on a giant nostalgia trip!
- AntoniusMaximus, on 03/18/2009, -3/+33It means that, involuntarily or not, the U.S. is in a moment of weakness, so it makes perfect sense to build up military forces.
There's a heated debate in the European Parliament about building up our own as well, simply because of the States' (maybe temporary) loss of political and military influence induced by the crisis. - frcc, on 03/18/2009, -50/+79It probably means Russia won't sit back while NATO surrounds them and builds missile networks along the border. Obama and the rest of the neocons should back off.
- Crazyredivan, on 03/18/2009, -1/+30He's not really a doomsday nut. Were you not paying attention when Russia cut off the pipeline through the Ukraine? Central and Eastern Europe would be in a world of hurt if Russia permanently did that. I don't understand why, after trying to understand and work with Russia as a world-power for so long, the rest of the world either forgets or refuses to acknowledge that Russia plays by her own rules. She does what is good for her and that's it.
- carbonfilament, on 03/18/2009, -0/+27and movies, don't forget movies. Where would we be without Red Dawn, Hunt for Red October, Star Trek 6, (in fact all star trek dealing with klingons), Dr. Strangelove, Failsafe, War Games, The Day The Earth Stood Still, etc.etc.etc
- jamspt, on 03/18/2009, -8/+34You sound like you're wearing a tin foil hat.
When Bush was in office, I didn't refer to him with any cutesy or derogatory suffixes or prefixes. Do you really find it impossible to have a rational conversation? The majority of the American people voted for this guy,
I know you use the phrase "can't be denied any longer" - but yes it can, because your argument just sounds like knee-jerk deep republican propaganda. Turn down the rhetoric. - pwner, on 03/18/2009, -8/+32Where is Dr. Manhattan when you need him?
- mnocket, on 03/18/2009, -18/+39Ah, there we go. I was wondering when the Blame America First crowd would show up.
- mnocket, on 03/18/2009, -3/+24He didn't forget - he justs chooses to ignore it since it doesn't support his ideology that the US is the root of all evil.
- Azerael, on 03/18/2009, -1/+21They're coming to get our precious fluids.
- ChoosyMother, on 03/17/2009, -9/+29North Korea always seems to find a way. And the real question isn't how, but why.
- sHockz, on 03/18/2009, -9/+27I always looked forward to calling people "Comrade"
- HunterGathers, on 03/18/2009, -1/+18So how in the US weaker?
We have more carrier task forces near Russia now (that carrie nukes), we have several divisions of Marines sitting in Iraqi ready to move, we have squadron of the most advanced stealth fighters sitting less than 100 miles of Russia, we've proved we have the capability to shoot down in coming missiles, our forces are not weak by an imagination, our subs work and we know where theirs are (sitting on a dock on the bay).
Stop getting your "news" from CNN and FOX. Our military is fine and recruitment is up due to the economy. - AntoniusMaximus, on 03/18/2009, -4/+20Objectively speaking, this is the perfect time for them to do it.
- richmomz, on 03/18/2009, -1/+17$150 billion over 4 years? lol - the Pentagon will probably spend more than that on staplers and paperclips alone.
- havok3114, on 03/18/2009, -0/+15North Korea pays for their arms by not feeding their people. 500 metric tonnes of food relief shows that. When they aren't getting food relief, the North Korean people don't eat.
- richmomz, on 03/18/2009, -2/+17More likely they are tired of NATO crawling up their ass (despite promises in the 1990s from Bush Sr. that NATO would not expand beyond Germany - lol) and proxy wars erupting on their borders.
- Bubble666, on 03/18/2009, -1/+15Wow, seriously ? come on it's a know fact that Russia supplies around 50% of the heating gas in the EU, Are you guys misinformed or what ? I mean this is only the heating gas, I'm not talking about Arms, Petroleum and other resources they might supply..Diggers gets me sad everyday of the week.
- xenuxenuts, on 03/18/2009, -1/+15To be honest, most countries do what's good for them.
- masamunecyrus, on 03/18/2009, -0/+14This is not something unexpected. He's simply continuing Putin's policies of ramping up military investment. They announced a couple years ago, too, that they would be modernizing their nuclear arsenal, and at that time they very obviously alluded to that they were doing it because of America's increasing involvement in the region.
Russia has quite a nationalism problem right now, at least as much as China does. I can't say I blame them; 20 years ago, they were the only other world superpower and everybody had to listen to them, now they're just a roadblock to be driven around in the UN. Putin and Medvedev are simply trying to increase Russia's power and political clout by making themselves a bit more intimidating, and most of the people are with them because they wish for a time where Russia is important, again.
I wouldn't worry too much about it, it just means that us western powers that have had it easy since the cold war can't afford to slack off and need to maintain our military strength. - Tenlow, on 03/18/2009, -1/+14Any time you have to say "think about it" instead of actually having a valid argument yourself, you lose.
- minorthreat, on 03/18/2009, -3/+16How do we pay for our military? Couldn't they just do the same?
- LordRedSnake, on 03/18/2009, -2/+15Remember the Soviet Union? Their economy was nonexistent. It was a fraction of the size that we thought it was during the Cold War. They were still able to compete in the nuclear arms and space race. Russia isn't in the strongest position today, but their economy is still orders of magnitude stronger than it was in the Soviet Era.
- GordonClass, on 03/18/2009, -3/+16Doesn't matter as both sides have enough weapons to destroy mankind already.
- slvrbullet87, on 03/18/2009, -7/+20Because it is a complicated world, not everything is peace and happiness
- BabyWookie, on 03/18/2009, -0/+12So much stupidity in one comment thread! Did any bother to notice that Russia is actually reducing the size of their forces here?!? All they are doing is transforming their military forces from the decrepit remains of the Red Army that they have right now, into a smaller, more professional, better-equipped fighting force that's similar to that of many Western countries. In the end, every one, but their Soviet era officers who are resistant to these changes win here.
- aufte, on 03/18/2009, -3/+15I love American arrogance. America spends trillions on warfare, war technology and armament for the last four decades. Russia decides to defend itself and it means an act of war? Scaring Americans is like shooting fish in a barrel.
- StreetPreacher, on 03/18/2009, -3/+15Are you serious? You do know that Iraq invaded Kuwait over a decade before we invaded them, right? The Kuwait situation was resolved in the original Gulf War and was long over.
By that logic we may as well invade Russia because they invaded Afghanistan once upon a time. But why stop there? Didn't Germany invade a whole bunch of countries years ago? Let's go invade them! Heck, we've already got bases there, so it'll be easy...
The only reason we invaded Iraq is because we wanted it and it was there for the taking. - richmomz, on 03/18/2009, -0/+12Even with this increase Russia's military budget is still tiny compared to ours. In fact, by some estimates the U.S. spends more on military/defense than every other nation in the world... COMBINED.
- johnhummel, on 03/18/2009, -5/+17From where?
Their stock market is in the tank. There's no credit where they can draw resources to build factories - and those are a joke. Their military is composed of rusting pieces of *****.
The only thing that Russia really has to offer the world is natural resources - oil, gas, etc, and to their credit, they've been working on that. But in a world where Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and other states can provide more oil, it's not the strongest bargaining chip.
Sure, Russia wants to rebuild their military - but it's not as easy as just saying "they can do it." They need to be able to offer the world something, and while "oil and gas" are cool, it's hardly a unique resource. - JCPahl, on 03/18/2009, -4/+15You have a very poor understanding of geopolitics if you think the U.S. is an uninvolved bystander in this.
- Grazzit, on 03/18/2009, -4/+15you guys really need to learn what the term 3rd world refers to.
1st world, U.S. + Nato
2nd world U.S.S.R.+ Warsaw Pact
3rd world everything else - grumpyrain, on 03/18/2009, -2/+12Um, the RTS index has lost 75% of its value in the last 6 months. By comparison, the NASDAQ has only lost 50%.
- vxp19, on 03/18/2009, -2/+12You are right in some things, and wrong in others.
What you are right about: our military is, mostly, outdated. I can speak with authority on this, as I am an officer (Captain!) in it. :)
The "outdated" word applies to both - equipment (not all of it, but a lot of it) is outdated, chain of command, the structure itself - everything needs to be revamped.
The reform isn't because we want to take over the world. This is because our army simply needs it, and is long overdue for it.
However, some of the things you're very wrong about. Namely, the whole NATO and "conventional war" bit.
I'm too lazy for it at the moment, however you may google this at your leisure - take a look at our defense policy. It was last changed in 2000 or 2001, if memory serves me correctly.
It clearly spells out, black on white, that there is NO "conventional war" if our opponent is either a nation with nuclear weapons, or if the opponent has an ally (that ally needs not be involved in the war, even. it just needs to exist.) with nuclear weapons. If either of these 2 conditions are met - the war is a nuclear war, from the get go.
What this means is, in essence, if any state attacks us, and that state has US (or somebody else that has nukes) on their side - that state will be turned into a nuclear parking lot within a few minutes.
Part of the reason for this policy is because our conventional equipment (and other things. see above) is outdated. See why we need this, now? :) - pathouston22, on 03/18/2009, -1/+11" Experts assessing the dangers posed to civilization have added climate change"
Ha, seriously? -
Show 51 - 100 of 435 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is