Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by Vince_Ulam, Jul 19, 2018.
Russia's response to an advancing Nato:
RT, 19th July 2018.
I'm increasingly persuaded NATO is obsolete and should have been disbanded as moribund after the Cold war. Europe should be able to defend itself and not rely on the variable benifices of Washington administrations.
In the face of these weapons there is no doubt.
This from 2014
Is this the point of showing russian properganda..to say Nato is not required.
So if Russia was too invade, its estimted it can roll to the Channel in about a week wiping out a lot of Nato command.America would be under no obligation to help as there would be no Nato.
Almost back to the senario when Hitler rolled to the shores of the Channel and we had one hell of a job to persuade the USA to get involved.Luckily we had the right leader for the time!
Nato was formed for such a threat after the 2 WW when Russia was threating, and still is to many ,including myself with the present leader..
Just wander along Yutube and see the many proud boasts of the competing fractions.We have a bigger,larger,faster and more destructive the theme goes.Yet in the end even if it employed suchweapons it leaves itself lonely and with no one to trade or threaten.
Stop trying to stir it ...well unless youra Ruskki lover and wish to boast..then I could understand!
Russia's problem is its leader..not the people!
You said it! Agree 1000%
Makes you wonder why they're leaving bottles full of Novichok in public parks instead of throwing them into a lake
The solution to pollution is dilution
Pretty; pretty graphics.
And Europe not be used by Washington to threaten Russia. That part of the cold war seemed never to finish and while it might not quite be the missile crisis, the rules of the game haven't changed much.
As with most nations
I'd like to see what Peresvet can do. I expect that it's more than igniting fireworks on a slow boat manned by wooden cutouts of people.
NATO has been advancing towards the Russian border for the past eighteen years. Under these circumstances it is fair for a country to show its strength.
I am not a 'Ruskki' hater. The Russian peoples have many rich cultures and there is much in them to admire.
I do not see why Russia's leader is any kind of a problem for Russia. The first duty of any government is to ensure the security of the people.
The US is not and never was part of NATO in order to protect Europe.
The US is and always was part of NATO in order to use european soil for its bases to threaten Russia and to protect and further its own interests.
I don't think the one precludes the other but yes, we should be sceptical of claims to altruism between nations.
They are not mutually exclusive no, but one is purely a means to another.
It’s amazing the tech that exists in CGI
EXCLUSIVE: Documents expose how Hollywood promotes war on behalf of the Pentagon, CIA and NSA
US military intelligence agencies have influenced over 1,800 movies and TV shows
Medium.com, 4th July 2017.
I don’t doubt it for a moment; most of the claims made by any military for their hardware are exaggerated into the realms of sci-fi, but the fictionalisation of their capability keeps the tax payers from questioning why they are paying $700 for hammer or spanner to service the hardware.
I don’t think you will get to see that. Official videos about the capability of emergent weapons will pretty much always be manufacturer puff with true capability kept private.
But tbh, you have a point; of all weapons, large lasers seem to have taken a very long time to become truly viable and useful. They have certainly moved on and are much more advanced than the laser weapons fitted to British ships during the Falklands war, but only now are they being fully developed. One reason I suppose is the deployability.
Laser power is locked to the size of the generation system and the size determines its practical use.
Large equipments can be fitted on ships, but in reality as conditions at sea such as sea spray, rain, fog and cloud all have a detrimental effect it is likely to be mostly a localised ship protection system rather than an truly offensive weapon. And close-in only needs to be powerful enough for that type of threat.
Greatest deployability would be by air, but again, size and power become restraints.
So where small lasers might complement an airborne weapon suite, large and powerful is much more problematic, and for smaller effect otherl weapons might already perform better.
Fixed land based laser weapons are obviously the easiest to make powerful, but they can only be defensive and reactive and will work best in open areas. Mobility will be hampered by size, terrain and line of sight/reaction time in the same way that other weapons are
So biggest and most powerful may not be the ‘best’, although it has good propaganda & marketing value.
Though other interpretations are available.