russia vs everyone else!!

Plug

The-Rigger wrote:

If Russia wish to declare war on the UK, they have my full support.

+1

Also how many russian electricans does it take to change a light bulb?

None, because in communist russia a light bulb changes you....

*speeds off in car*

Thrill

bill_ashmount wrote:

hehe,

I wouldn't be too worried about Russia anyway, country is dying on it's feet, population is shrinking dramatically. It ain't the country it once was.

It still has the might to wipe us all off the face of the planet though. They are not to be messed with lightly


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/04/wputin204.xml

Russia has the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, with an estimated total of 16,000 warheads, of which 7,200 are believed to be operational.


The Soviet Union had an estimated total of 35,000 warheads. The Americans have 9,960 warheads of which 5,735 are operational. Russia’s nuclear weapons can be fired from land-based silos, submarines and bomber planes.

faceman

Any Russian boards members care to join in?

Manic Moran

I think it's all rather a good move for all concerned.

The Russian military certainly needs the practise. After years of deriliction, Russia's finally got a bit of money to spend on bringing their forces back up to something approximating a useful operating condition. In terms of hardware, they've got quite a building/replacement programme going on, and in terms of operations, they can afford to buy fuel and maintainance again.

On the other hand, NORAD and UK Air Defense haven't had anything beyond scripted drills in years. A little OpFor practise wouldn't do their skills any harm at all.

Finally, I think there's little issue on the political front: It would be good to have another gorilla on the block, always provides options.

NTM

robinph

Manic Moran wrote:

Finally, I think there's little issue on the political front: It would be good to have another gorilla on the block, always provides options.

...and now that it's a friendly gorilla we get to play fight with them for a while before China gets themselves up to fighting weight.

marco murphy

The RAF don't patrol out skies to keep an eye on the paddies. They do it for themselves.

Russia is doing nothing more than flexing the oul' muscles. They don't have the capacity to do much more than flying around Britain or otherwise. I think it's a good thing, perhaps a message to the US that they just might not get away with attacking Iran and/or placing a missile defence system on Russias doorstep.

gingerGiant

Raskolnikov wrote:

It got me thinking. Why bother with expensive aircraft when they can just park a couple of tractors in the middle of the M50. The country would be crippled within minutes!

Or disable the westlink with a pretty small explosive device placed at the base of those big pillars that hold it all up. Whole country grinds to a halt in about an hour.

the_syco

Poblachtach wrote:

Russia is doing nothing more than flexing the oul' muscles. They don't have the capacity to do much more than flying around Britain or otherwise.

But they have their own supply of oil. The US has oil fields, which, although not much, should keep the US flying. The British... are f**ked if their oil supplies are hit. The Russians are making their money from their oil, and have lots more left.

Poblachtach wrote:

I think it's a good thing, perhaps a message to the US that they just might not get away with attacking Iran and/or placing a missile defence system on Russias doorstep.

The thing I find funny, is that the Russians will have quitened any objections.

Before: We are at peace, we need no Americans. Go home.

Now: F**king Russians. Run away. Let the USA build her Star Wars system anywhere!

Nailz

ССР России их с Ирландией и избили англичанами!

faceman

Nailz wrote:

ССР России их с Ирландией и избили англичанами!

ваша мама или мама былого

BanzaiBk

faceman wrote:

Any Russian boards members care to join in?

Half Ruskie here.

Tbh ever since this whole charade began my father and his family have been anxious. I personally stand by my original thought which was the Kremlin are orchestrating these examples of aviation advancement as a mere warning prior to the elections.

Last few times too many people "Interfered" in their eyes and they simply don't want the same to happen this time around.

Russia is doing nothing more than flexing the oul' muscles.

I agree. I'm quite proud of my ancestry, and today modern Russia is an exciting and vibrant place to be. However I'm quite happy to be sitting contented in Ireland.

Nailz

Что означает "былого"?

thefinalstage

Вы люди и ваш причудливый русский! Я могу использовать переводчика онлайн также!

Very poor I know :P.

marco murphy

Дисков онлайновые технологии удивительной, хотя. Я могу представить себе с помощью КГБ google прямо сейчас!

Nailz

Я не пользуюсь google, что вещь, как я бегло говорит на шести языках. Английский, испанский, итальянский, немецкий, французский и русский. Все основные европейской страны, и всех тех, я не знаю ирландского в полном объеме. Позор мне!

marco murphy

Россия не европейская;)

Nailz

Я прошу отличается, большая часть населения России находится в основе европейской России. Не говоря уже об их столице, Москва.

Senna

Did the Irish Aircorps not have more planes in the past? than the ones on their website now.
i remember watching planes like the one below (similar size and shape) taking off and landing at Finner camp in Donegal.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/9D56F135_F06E_CBD6_0A40A8934698E9D3.jpg

stevenmu

ёб твою́ мать (it is AH after all )

BanzaiBk wrote:

Tbh ever since this whole charade began my father and his family have been anxious. I personally stand by my original thought which was the Kremlin are orchestrating these examples of aviation advancement as a mere warning prior to the elections.

That's actually an interesting thought, Russia seems to have a long history of totalitarian leadership, in not too distant times there was of course the communist politburo, and before them Stalin and Lenin, and before them the Csars. With all the hype surrounding the holocaust (and I don't mean to belittle that in any way), in comparison Stalin manges to make that look like a minor traffic incident, and the others apparantly weren't much better.

And yet when Russia first tasted the potential of democratic freedom the nation nearly tore itself apart between severe poverty and economic problems, and a rapidly growing criminal underworld.

On the one hand you can see how totalitarianism has destroyed Russia, but on the other hand you can see how 'freedom' does the the exact same. It's hard to see what is the optimum form of governement for Russia, and it's equally hard to see what form of Russian government is better for the world as a whole. It's possible that Putin's style of "dictatorial democracy" and the resulting boosts in the Russian military preparedness will greatly add to world stability and make Russia a better place to live. But it's equally possible that it will have a destabilizing effect and bring about another cold war.

But then again is a cold war such a bad thing, technology and therefore mankind and our understanding of, well, everything was greatly advanced during the last cold war. Since then our greatest achievements have been health and saftey regulations and sarbanes oxley controls, not exactly up there with moon landings and microprocessors and so on.

Wheels, within wheels, within wheels, within ... etc. etc.

BanzaiBk

stevenmu wrote:

and it's equally hard to see what form of Russian government is better for the world as a whole.

A great wonder tbh.

I wouldn't be surprised to see this continue for awhile. Talking with the cousins earlier seems the public are being told they are "stretching their legs". Can only imagine what the Moscow line is:rolleyes:

faceman

Poblachtach wrote:

Дисков онлайновые технологии удивительной, хотя. Я могу представить себе с помощью КГБ google прямо сейчас!

"Disks on-line technologies surprising, though. I can imagine by means of KGB google right now! "

Surprising indeed!!

SimpleSam06

stevenmu wrote:

That's actually an interesting thought, Russia seems to have a long history of totalitarian leadership

Well in fairness so did most of the rest of the world up until the last century, and its only recently that democracy of sorts has been breaking out all over. They may be late to the table but they'll join us for dinner eventually.

stevenmu wrote:

And yet when Russia first tasted the potential of democratic freedom the nation nearly tore itself apart between severe poverty and economic problems, and a rapidly growing criminal underworld.

The underworld was always there, once they sold denims to Russians, now they sell cocaine. The difference is with the recent instability they have got access to some serious military hardware from the bankrupt army over there, and that makes them more pre-eminent than perhaps they deserve to be.

stevenmu wrote:

On the one hand you can see how totalitarianism has destroyed Russia, but on the other hand you can see how 'freedom' does the the exact same.

I wouldn't call it freedom in the traditional sense. You have the same heads that were there for years, still jockeying for power, but slowly ceding it to democratic process as western ideas trickle in. And that is what is happening, along with much increased affluence. Russia has the third largest currency reserves in the world. Poor they ain't.

stevenmu wrote:

It's possible that Putin's style of "dictatorial democracy" and the resulting boosts in the Russian military preparedness will greatly add to world stability and make Russia a better place to live. But it's equally possible that it will have a destabilizing effect and bring about another cold war.

No, its just dickwaving by Putin, the man who put his pecs on display to show the world what a strong leader he was. Honestly, shouldn't the buffoon just have clubbed some wandering female and dragged her back to his cave for a raping in hi-def? There is little more significance to this action than that.

stevenmu wrote:

But then again is a cold war such a bad thing, technology and therefore mankind and our understanding of, well, everything was greatly advanced during the last cold war.

But would it have happened regardless of the Cold War? The greatest catalyst to the advancement of human knowledge hasn't been strife, although that is where the most visible advancements are made, the military mind is inherently conservative in nature. It has been a levelling of the playing field and the removal of inherited or class based advantages.

The one thing all totalitarian or monarchial systems have in common, is that they are not meritocracies. The best rarely if ever rise to the top, unless they happen to be the best arse kissers. Thats why they will always lose against freer or more democratic societies.

It is fairly ingrained in the Russian mindset that you have to be a badass to be respected, and while there is an element of truth in that, if you go too far you just end up looking like a knuckle dragger, a parody.

On an unrelated note, if someone wanted to invade Ireland, all we'd have to do is buy a half dozen nukes from China (with extra lead!) and aim them in the general direction of the aggressors. That goes for the UK, USA, or Russia. Another great leveller, ain't technology grand?

Nailz

stevenmu wrote:

ёб твою́ мать

Щеке вас! Ваш воспользовавшись AH не вы? Тут - та - та ... Вы сказали "ёб Ваш Сестра", как в Baseketball!;)

I love these international threads, it's were I can flex my language mussels! While everyone else is using Google Translate.:p

marco murphy

Why dont you frequent the language forums?

Manic Moran

ёб твою́ мать

I'm a little behind, but doesn't that mean something about one's mother?

But would it have happened regardless of the Cold War? The greatest catalyst to the advancement of human knowledge hasn't been strife, although that is where the most visible advancements are made, the military mind is inherently conservative in nature.

I disagree. Whilst development would still have occurred, I do not believe it would have been developed anywhere nearly as rapidly. Doubtless people would still be discovering scientific principles and new technologies, but without the military tax dollars to fund the research for the practical applications therof, would we be in the position we're in? I mean, how many of today's everyday things have military origins? Even reading this board relies heavily on military technology. I mean, you're using a computer (ENIAC, the first modern computer being invented to calculate artillery tables), which probably has a CD ROM drive to load the software (Using a laser, miniaturised originally for placing into tanks) which runs software, probably created with a compiler (Thank the US Navy for that one) and being run on the Internet (which is a development of DARPANet).

Even when staying out of the military sphere, the prestige factor spurred much spending for research: How much technology is derived from applications perfected during the Space Race? Again, I'm sure it would have happened eventually, but if you look at the technological advances even between 1939 to 1945, they were huge for such a short timespan.

NTM

SimpleSam06

Manic Moran wrote:

I disagree. Whilst development would still have occurred, I do not believe it would have been developed anywhere nearly as rapidly.

Any competitive environment has very much the same effect. Look at the development of the personal computer - you went from ZX-81 glorified calculators, to Amstrads and Commodores, to 4Ghz quad core monsters in the space of barely two decades, and the 4Ghz machines are approximately the same price, inflation adjusted, as the original personal computers.

This is purely the result of large corporations competing with one another in the marketplace, and had little to do with the military. And there were thousands of small advances and innovations (and a few huge ones) that allowed that to happen. Taken in the perspective of the history of technology, that is insanely fast, and its no coincidence that most of the development took place in modern "free" democracies.

Manic Moran wrote:

Again, I'm sure it would have happened eventually, but if you look at the technological advances even between 1939 to 1945, they were huge for such a short timespan.

You'd be shocked at just how little was invented during world war 2. Military research and manufacturing cycles take decades, and approval during time of war is risky; you wouldn't do it unless you were losing. Most of the development and creation of ideas was done in the run up to the war, in the 20s and 30s.

Hell, most of the US naval fleet is over 50 years old. They are still using the B-52 airframes. Even their most cutting edge stuff currently fielded was conceived back in the 70s and 80s. US troops in Iraq were ditching their heavy, clumsy military issue GPS units in favour of lightweight, durable commercial options. This mindset is replicated in every military on earth.

However you are correct, the war without a doubt did advance our knowledge in many fields. Its probably fairer to say that a competitive environment is as conducive if not more conducive to development than strife. But we can get that without threatening each other with nuclear arsenals or killing countless millions, now, can't we?

Manic Moran

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Any competitive environment has very much the same effect.

<snip>

This is purely the result of large corporations competing with one another in the marketplace, and had little to do with the military. And there were thousands of small advances and innovations (and a few huge ones) that allowed that to happen. Taken in the perspective of the history of technology, that is insanely fast, and its no coincidence that most of the development took place in modern "free" democracies.

But here we're talking about technology which is developed with a good chance of a profitable civilian/commercial market being available for it at the end of the research cycle. Going from ZX-81 to quad-core happened because the private computer market had at that point been established and companies knew that investment in that area could pay dividends. But how did people get to the TRS-80, which launched the commercial market in the first place?

You'd be shocked at just how little was invented during world war 2.

Note, I'm not talking about invented per se. I'm talking about the R&D required to turn an invention from a concept dreamed up by Joe Boggs in a university to something made of tangible material which actually works well. Look at aviation: Concepts like the jet engine, delta-wings, radar and navigation systems were already in existance in the civilian world, but nobody was really able to make them work. The respective militaries, however, took those concepts, threw craploads of resources at them, and by the end of the war seeing a delta-winged jet-powered aircraft capable of flying and navigating at night was not impossible. I'm sure that eventually Boeing, BMW, Fokker, whoever would have developed the same applications, but as quickly? I'm not so sure.

Similarly in tanks. The Army threw lots of cash at the development of hardened steels, the skill of welding became dominant over the riveting which was the standard before the war, large scale metallurgical casting was possible, high-strength transmission systems were designed, what I believe to be the first practical application of gyroscopes was created (Gun stabilisation), and so on. I volunteer at my local tank museum: The speed of technological advance between tanks built in 1939 and 1945 is staggering.

They are still using the B-52 airframes.

But instead of dropping 120 iron bombs at a time as of the Vietnam era, each airframe (which has been continually updated with electronics) now drops a single, self-navigating bomb, each of which disperses multiple submunitions capable of independently identifying and targetting armoured vehicles and destroying them with self-formed charges.

US troops in Iraq were ditching their heavy, clumsy military issue GPS units in favour of lightweight, durable commercial options.

This is solely because the special features unique to the PLGGR were not used, and the average Garmin RINO worked well enough. Now, when Garmin produces a device which is capable of interfacing with the FBCB2 system in my tank and also accurately determining position in the middle of an Electronic Warfare environment (especially if the GPS signals get scrambled by the US), let me know. A military PLGGR is far more cabale than a Garmin, and with the latest interfaces, frankly, is more user-friendly too.

Heck, what was the purpose of GPS in the first place? It wasn't Garmin saying "I have a commerical application in mind", it was the US military spending the gazillions of dollars, probably well outside even IBM or Siemens' budget to throw up the dozen or so satellites required to tell military units where they were, then being nice enough to allow commerical entities like Garmin or Magellan to use them.

NTM

faceman

Time to click the "unsubscribe to thread" button me thinks!

marco murphy

Look at this lol

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/44/143394735_cae0ffdd0d.jpg?v=0

SimpleSam06

Manic Moran wrote:

But how did people get to the TRS-80, which launched the commercial market in the first place?

Ah, but I thought we were discussing the speed of advancement here, not where the ideas for technology came from. Personal computers are one example where there has been staggeringly swift advances with little to no military intervention, but it is by no means the only one.

Manic Moran wrote:

Note, I'm not talking about invented per se. I'm talking about the R&D required to turn an invention from a concept dreamed up by Joe Boggs in a university to something made of tangible material which actually works well.

Exactly.

You have selected the two areas, aviation and tank warfare, that saw the greatest advances in the war, with the possible exception of rocketry, submarines, and electronics. The use of these proved to be crucial in deciding the outcome of battles in world war 2, and so that is where the military applied most of its muscle, which is an exact corollary to your statement "developed with a good chance of a profitable civilian/commercial market being available for it at the end of the research cycle."

The money goes where it will make the most effective return, everything else comes later. This is true on a commercial or military basis. Yes, if there had been no world war 2, tank and aviation technology might not be as advanced as they are today, but I wager the rest would be up to scratch, if not more advanced than what we have today. Sadly we will never know.

My point is that non-military groups can achieve just as much as military groups. This has been proven without a doubt.

Manic Moran wrote:

But instead of dropping 120 iron bombs at a time as of the Vietnam era, each airframe (which has been continually updated with electronics) now drops a single, self-navigating bomb, each of which disperses multiple submunitions capable of independently identifying and targetting armoured vehicles and destroying them with self-formed charges.

True. Which doesn't detract from the rest of my post about old hardware and the attached mindset.

Manic Moran wrote:

A military PLGGR is far more cabale than a Garmin, and with the latest interfaces, frankly, is more user-friendly too.

Thats great, but troops still elected to choose the commercial version over the military supplied one. Thats hardly the only case where that happened either.

Manic Moran wrote:

Heck, what was the purpose of GPS in the first place? ... it was the US military spending the gazillions of dollars, probably well outside even IBM or Siemens' budget to throw up the dozen or so satellites required to tell military units where they were, then being nice enough to allow commerical entities like Garmin or Magellan to use them.

And yet the commercial satellite market is booming, and worth billions of euros. I'm not up to date on the latest and greatest in that field, but I bet that the private sector is doing plenty there too.

Terry

The industrial revolution was borne out of neccessity rather than anything else.
This saw a huge leap in technological development in the western world.
The steam engine being one of the biggest. This pretty much made it possible for the Western United States to develop with the rest of the Western world.


This did not come about because of war. It came about because of a world which was becoming more self aware and one which saw ever increasing human migration. Ever since then, technology has been growing at an ever increasing rate, with or without war being involved.

ejmaztec

I think that the vast majority of scientific advances, whether military or otherwise, since WW2, resulted directly from war. The US would never have advanced so quickly, otherwise.

As part of their payment for the fight against the Nazis, they received access to all British scientific secrets. At the end of the war they shipped approx 3,500 tons of scientific papers straight out of Germany's secret archives.

Manic Moran

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Ah, but I thought we were discussing the speed of advancement here, not where the ideas for technology came from. Personal computers are one example where there has been staggeringly swift advances with little to no military intervention, but it is by no means the only one.

But based on what foundation? Who laid the groundwork upon which the modern computer is capable? I gave the example of just browsing this board earlier: There is no doubt that personal computing on the Internet is driven today some 99.999% by commerical interests (and hobbies) and not the military or cold-war pride projects, but we would not be this far this fast without them.

Yes, if there had been no world war 2, tank and aviation technology might not be as advanced as they are today, but I wager the rest would be up to scratch, if not more advanced than what we have today.

I don't agree with that. Much of today's technology is inter-related. If technology A in the electronics field hadn't been invented, then technology B in the biology field might not have been invented, even if technology B has nothing per se to do with electronics. Most development requires something else to work with.

My point is that non-military groups can achieve just as much as military groups. This has been proven without a doubt.

It is, if the non-military group happens to be directed in that direction. Looked at rationally, and most corporations are rational, military expenditure and pride projects like the space race are horrible ideas. You have all that expenditure of money for no profit whatsoever. The reason NASA spent so many gazillion dollars in the 1960s was not for commercial profit, it was so the US could say "Hey! Look! We put a man on the moon!" Yet any technologies (to include 'practicalisation' of previously existing concepts) or knowledge which came from this Cold War project had found its way into the commercial market and then been expanded upon.

Thats great, but troops still elected to choose the commercial version over the military supplied one. Thats hardly the only case where that happened either.

Though I carried a Garmin RINO on my person, I always made sure to bring at least one PLGR along on every patrol. If ever the Garmin failed to work (which happened on rare occasions), I was guaranteed that the PLGR would tell me where I was.

And yet the commercial satellite market is booming, and worth billions of euros. I'm not up to date on the latest and greatest in that field, but I bet that the private sector is doing plenty there too.

The commerical satellite market is indeed booming. But considering how many billions of dollars went into rocketry research both for military and Space Race applications, would a commercial enterprise have chosen to develop rocketry in the 1960s thus allowing us to get to the current state where a satellite launch is unremarkable? I doubt it. even if they had, after the first half-dozen rockets blew up on the pad, the CEO would have likely pulled the plug. We'd probably be at the Telstar stage about now.

NTM

Nailz

Я извиняюсь, но в честности товарища, я не сочту, что чтение ...