|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States44439 Posts
On August 12 2016 09:24 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 09:20 KwarK wrote:
My source literally refutes your claim that you don't think it happened ever. That's literally what it says. It doesn't matter whether you think it happened or not because you are not an authoritative source and nobody cares what you think, even if you saw one once in 2012. It happened before 2006, okay. That obviously sets it in stone. Lets forget the rest of the source that was debunked by US authorities in the last decade, because obviously, you were talking just prior 2006. You know, when your source had a chance to be correct. It's proven that things changed. Proven by actual (US and european) military intelligence. Sidenote: it wasn't me that "saw" the boat, it was the US north command that confirmed it. So excuse me if i go with that, rather than a piece that's proven to be wrong on multiple occasions since it was published.
Seeing a boat once does not and never will disprove a claim that the boats are usually in dock maintained at a state of readiness. How are you not getting that it doesn't disprove the claim? And how are you getting that you still haven't provided a single source that refutes a single word of my source? You have refuted a claim that they never patrol, a claim that was never made.
I am quoting an actual assessment of Russian second strike capability and its limitations. You are citing nothing and just repeating over and over an incident which does nothing to refute a single part of my source while crying "yeah but I don't think that's right". What you think doesn't fucking matter because you don't know shit about this subject. Find a source that actually counts saying that Russian submarine deployment policy has changed since 2006 and that'll matter. Saying that one was sighted in 2012 does not indicate a change of policy from sporadic patrolling because sporadic patrolling includes the possibility of sighting one in 2012. You have provided no evidence that the previous assessment that they are usually maintained in dock at a state of readiness has changed.
If you think that the second strike assessment is out of date then find a more up to date one that backs up your position. You can't just say that they're incorrect and demand that everyone respect your expertise on the subject of Russian second strike capabilities.
|
Russia is modernizing it's army not as a result of NATO, though it does have it's benefits in doing so, but in part due to China which is increasing it's economic reach in former soviet bloc countries. While also rushing it's space program.
Meanwhile the Obama admin is modernizing it's nuclear arsenal which could be creating a new cold war arms race while continuing the Bush doctrine of the FCS (Future Combat System) program overhauls which is already in the hundreds of billions of dollars and that was in just after 2003. It was said to be stopped but is still going on but less focus on manpower and more on robotics and UAV/UGV's.
|
idk this whole argument seems weird. What are you each trying to prove?
I think it's very plausible that Russia has more subs in the water than 2006. Their general posture has become much more belligerent since then. Ukraine has happened and they've become directly involved in the Middle East again. Correspondingly, sightings of the subs seem to have increased. I think it's fair to say that ten years is a long time to remain confident the subs are "usually in dock".
That said, it's also very reasonable to say that if the Russians do ever choose to dock their entire sub fleet, even infrequently, they leave themselves open and are implicitly relying on the US's unwillingness to strike.
|
On August 12 2016 08:52 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +There are plenty of things to dislike about Russia. I talk about a lot of them when I think the discussion could be productive. There's a difference between standard disdain for the unusual and often shitty things that Russia does, and the blind, irrational hatred I've seen especially among that subset of the ex-USSR.
Blind, maybe. Wouldn't call it necessarily irrational, especially not after crimea, but that's a topic for a different thread i suppose.
I don't really want to go into it because it would end badly, but it's far more than that. And it's worse than your standard anti-imperialist sentiment. A lot of what comes out of the Baltic nations is frighteningly closely aligned with the positions of the most rabid neocons in the US.
On August 12 2016 09:43 Belisarius wrote:
idk this whole argument seems weird. What are you each trying to prove?
I think it's very plausible that Russia has more subs in the water than 2006. Their general posture has become much more belligerent since then. Ukraine has happened and they've become directly involved in the Middle East again. Correspondingly, sightings of the subs seem to have increased. I think it's fair to say that ten years is a long time to remain confident the subs are "usually in dock".
That said, it's also very reasonable to say that if the Russians do ever choose to dock their entire sub fleet, even infrequently, they leave themselves open and are implicitly relying on the US's unwillingness to strike.
Russia's most recent and most significant post-Soviet modernizations took effect well after 2006. Kwark is basically arguing from the point of view of an opinion piece that was proven wrong.
|
On August 12 2016 09:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 09:24 m4ini wrote:On August 12 2016 09:20 KwarK wrote:
My source literally refutes your claim that you don't think it happened ever. That's literally what it says. It doesn't matter whether you think it happened or not because you are not an authoritative source and nobody cares what you think, even if you saw one once in 2012. It happened before 2006, okay. That obviously sets it in stone. Lets forget the rest of the source that was debunked by US authorities in the last decade, because obviously, you were talking just prior 2006. You know, when your source had a chance to be correct. It's proven that things changed. Proven by actual (US and european) military intelligence. Sidenote: it wasn't me that "saw" the boat, it was the US north command that confirmed it. So excuse me if i go with that, rather than a piece that's proven to be wrong on multiple occasions since it was published. Seeing a boat once does not and never will disprove a claim that the boats are usually in dock maintained at a state of readiness. How are you not getting that it doesn't disprove the claim? And how are you getting that you still haven't provided a single source that refutes a single word of my source? You have refuted a claim that they never patrol, a claim that was never made. I am quoting an actual assessment of Russian second strike capability and its limitations. You are citing nothing and just repeating over and over an incident which does nothing to refute a single part of my source while crying "yeah but I don't think that's right". What you think doesn't fucking matter because you don't know shit about this subject. Find a source that actually counts saying that Russian submarine deployment policy has changed since 2006 and that'll matter. Saying that one was sighted in 2012 does not indicate a change of policy from sporadic patrolling because sporadic patrolling includes the possibility of sighting one in 2012. You have provided no evidence that the previous assessment that they are usually maintained in dock at a state of readiness has changed.
Nah, i don't actually need to, since your source doesn't do that either.
Russia has 12 SSBNs, although only 9 are currently in service; and it has dramatically
reduced the frequency of routine patrols. In fact, Russia usually has
no SSBNs at sea, relying instead on a dock-alert system in which a submarine
in port is on alert.2
They based their claim on nine almost 50 year old boats. They don't even mention any of the newer classes - they only counted 3 Delta III, 6 Delta IV. And even these numbers are wrong, because at the time, russia had 7 Delta IV. And no, there were 7 in 2006 already. In fact, those boats were almost 30 years old (with Delta IIIs being even older). So, what a surprise that they don't get deployed.
So, lets briefly recap: your source is based on a wrong number of subs, ignoring the Typhoon class (also nuclear capabilities) and later models completely.
And as if that wasn't enough: these "facts" were based on "Russian Strategic Submarine Patrols" by Kristensen.
You never guess what i've just found. Correct: "Russian Strategic Submarine Patrols Rebound" by Kristensen.
http://fas.org/blogs/security/2009/02/russia/
And so your source completely falls apart. Was fun arguing though, even though completely off topic.
|
United States44439 Posts
On August 12 2016 09:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 08:52 m4ini wrote:There are plenty of things to dislike about Russia. I talk about a lot of them when I think the discussion could be productive. There's a difference between standard disdain for the unusual and often shitty things that Russia does, and the blind, irrational hatred I've seen especially among that subset of the ex-USSR.
Blind, maybe. Wouldn't call it necessarily irrational, especially not after crimea, but that's a topic for a different thread i suppose. I don't really want to go into it because it would end badly, but it's far more than that. And it's worse than your standard anti-imperialist sentiment. A lot of what comes out of the Baltic nations is frighteningly closely aligned with the positions of the most rabid neocons in the US. Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 09:43 Belisarius wrote:
idk this whole argument seems weird. What are you each trying to prove?
I think it's very plausible that Russia has more subs in the water than 2006. Their general posture has become much more belligerent since then. Ukraine has happened and they've become directly involved in the Middle East again. Correspondingly, sightings of the subs seem to have increased. I think it's fair to say that ten years is a long time to remain confident the subs are "usually in dock".
That said, it's also very reasonable to say that if the Russians do ever choose to dock their entire sub fleet, even infrequently, they leave themselves open and are implicitly relying on the US's unwillingness to strike. Russia's most recent and most significant post-Soviet modernizations took effect well after 2006. Kwark is basically arguing from the point of view of an opinion piece that was proven wrong.
Do you have a more up to date assessment of their capabilities I can read? So far none that disputes the evidence I read has been provided but I am entirely open to being informed. I'm not invested in my current opinion, it's simply that my current opinion is informed by an actual source whereas the opinion I am arguing against is just some random guy on the internet who thinks a single sighting somehow disproves a pattern of usually being docked.
|
On August 12 2016 09:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 09:51 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 08:52 m4ini wrote:There are plenty of things to dislike about Russia. I talk about a lot of them when I think the discussion could be productive. There's a difference between standard disdain for the unusual and often shitty things that Russia does, and the blind, irrational hatred I've seen especially among that subset of the ex-USSR.
Blind, maybe. Wouldn't call it necessarily irrational, especially not after crimea, but that's a topic for a different thread i suppose. I don't really want to go into it because it would end badly, but it's far more than that. And it's worse than your standard anti-imperialist sentiment. A lot of what comes out of the Baltic nations is frighteningly closely aligned with the positions of the most rabid neocons in the US. On August 12 2016 09:43 Belisarius wrote:
idk this whole argument seems weird. What are you each trying to prove?
I think it's very plausible that Russia has more subs in the water than 2006. Their general posture has become much more belligerent since then. Ukraine has happened and they've become directly involved in the Middle East again. Correspondingly, sightings of the subs seem to have increased. I think it's fair to say that ten years is a long time to remain confident the subs are "usually in dock".
That said, it's also very reasonable to say that if the Russians do ever choose to dock their entire sub fleet, even infrequently, they leave themselves open and are implicitly relying on the US's unwillingness to strike. Russia's most recent and most significant post-Soviet modernizations took effect well after 2006. Kwark is basically arguing from the point of view of an opinion piece that was proven wrong. Do you have a more up to date assessment of their capabilities I can read? So far none that disputes the evidence I read has been provided but I am entirely open to being informed. I'm not invested in my current opinion, it's simply that my current opinion is informed by an actual source whereas the opinion I am arguing against is just some random guy on the internet who thinks a single sighting somehow disproves a pattern of usually being docked.
Turned out that the random guy had a point over the other random guy who wasn't able to factcheck his source, or made sure that his 10 year old source at least was remotely up to date.
|
United States44439 Posts
On August 12 2016 09:56 m4ini wrote:And as if that wasn't enough: these "facts" were based on "Russian Strategic Submarine Patrols" by Kristensen. You never guess what i've just found. Correct: "Russian Strategic Submarine Patrols Rebound" by Kristensen. http://fas.org/blogs/security/2009/02/russia/And so your source completely falls apart. Was fun arguing though, even though completely off topic.
You understand that you could have posted an actual source any of the half dozen times that I told you that your opinion didn't count and that I wanted a source, right?
But fair enough, I'll happily accept that as of 2009 Russia has increased its patrolling. I'm not interested in arguing against facts, you just actually need to provide some before you have an argument, something you refused to do despite the fact that what you were arguing against was facts.
If Russian submarine patrolling has improved then they have second strike capability, happy now?
|
United States44439 Posts
On August 12 2016 10:00 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 09:58 KwarK wrote:On August 12 2016 09:51 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 08:52 m4ini wrote:There are plenty of things to dislike about Russia. I talk about a lot of them when I think the discussion could be productive. There's a difference between standard disdain for the unusual and often shitty things that Russia does, and the blind, irrational hatred I've seen especially among that subset of the ex-USSR.
Blind, maybe. Wouldn't call it necessarily irrational, especially not after crimea, but that's a topic for a different thread i suppose. I don't really want to go into it because it would end badly, but it's far more than that. And it's worse than your standard anti-imperialist sentiment. A lot of what comes out of the Baltic nations is frighteningly closely aligned with the positions of the most rabid neocons in the US. On August 12 2016 09:43 Belisarius wrote:
idk this whole argument seems weird. What are you each trying to prove?
I think it's very plausible that Russia has more subs in the water than 2006. Their general posture has become much more belligerent since then. Ukraine has happened and they've become directly involved in the Middle East again. Correspondingly, sightings of the subs seem to have increased. I think it's fair to say that ten years is a long time to remain confident the subs are "usually in dock".
That said, it's also very reasonable to say that if the Russians do ever choose to dock their entire sub fleet, even infrequently, they leave themselves open and are implicitly relying on the US's unwillingness to strike. Russia's most recent and most significant post-Soviet modernizations took effect well after 2006. Kwark is basically arguing from the point of view of an opinion piece that was proven wrong. Do you have a more up to date assessment of their capabilities I can read? So far none that disputes the evidence I read has been provided but I am entirely open to being informed. I'm not invested in my current opinion, it's simply that my current opinion is informed by an actual source whereas the opinion I am arguing against is just some random guy on the internet who thinks a single sighting somehow disproves a pattern of usually being docked. Turned out that the random guy had a point over the other random guy who wasn't able to factcheck his source, or made sure that his 10 year old source at least was remotely up to date.
You didn't post any fucking facts and just kept saying "I reckon your facts are wrong" over and over until this most recent post.
|
The internet says the Borei class didn't launch until 2007 so it's unexpected for them to show up in a 2006 source.
|
Tomorrow should be interesting:
Donald Trump’s campaign and top Republican Party officials plan what one person called a “come to Jesus” meeting on Friday in Orlando to discuss the Republican nominee’s struggling campaign, according to multiple sources familiar with the scheduled sit-down.
Though a campaign source dismissed it as a "typical" gathering, others described it as a more serious meeting, with one calling it an "emergency meeting." It comes at a time of mounting tension between the campaign and the Republican National Committee, which is facing pressure to pull the plug on Trump’s campaign and redirect party funds down ballot to protect congressional majorities endangered by Trump’s candidacy.
The request for the Orlando Ritz Carlton meeting originated with Trump’s campaign, according to a source familiar with the broad details, and is being viewed by RNC officials as a sign that the campaign has come to grips with the difficulty it is having in maintaining a message and running a ground game.
“They want to patch up a rift that just keeps unfolding,” one source said. “They finally realize they need the RNC for their campaign because, let’s face it, there is no campaign.”
Another person familiar with the meeting, a Republican operative who works with the campaign, said the planned gathering was “a come-to-Jesus meeting.” That source said that many Trump campaign staffers share the party officials’ frustrations with Trump’s penchant for self-sabotaging rhetoric. “What’s bothering people on the campaign is that they feel like they’re doing all the right things, but they’re losing every news cycle to Hillary and there’s nothing they can do about it.”
The campaign official said Trump, who is scheduled to travel to Pennsylvania on Friday, was not slated to attend the meeting, but that Karen Giorno, a senior adviser to the campaign, was.
Source
|
Hmm... that is some weird logic. I guess they just figured that Trump would respond better to being asked to come to jesus than an average person? I don't follow.
|
On August 12 2016 10:04 oBlade wrote:
The internet says the Borei class didn't launch until 2007 so it's unexpected for them to show up in a 2006 source.
Correct. The Typhoon is not Borei Class though, but Akula - which was in service at the time of Kwarks paper, and is also the class that was seen multiple times around the globe. I actually don't really understand why they completely ignored those, and miscounted the number of Delta IV boats, considering the US had a pretty good grasp on the amount of those.
|
On August 12 2016 09:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 09:51 LegalLord wrote:On August 12 2016 08:52 m4ini wrote:There are plenty of things to dislike about Russia. I talk about a lot of them when I think the discussion could be productive. There's a difference between standard disdain for the unusual and often shitty things that Russia does, and the blind, irrational hatred I've seen especially among that subset of the ex-USSR.
Blind, maybe. Wouldn't call it necessarily irrational, especially not after crimea, but that's a topic for a different thread i suppose. I don't really want to go into it because it would end badly, but it's far more than that. And it's worse than your standard anti-imperialist sentiment. A lot of what comes out of the Baltic nations is frighteningly closely aligned with the positions of the most rabid neocons in the US. On August 12 2016 09:43 Belisarius wrote:
idk this whole argument seems weird. What are you each trying to prove?
I think it's very plausible that Russia has more subs in the water than 2006. Their general posture has become much more belligerent since then. Ukraine has happened and they've become directly involved in the Middle East again. Correspondingly, sightings of the subs seem to have increased. I think it's fair to say that ten years is a long time to remain confident the subs are "usually in dock".
That said, it's also very reasonable to say that if the Russians do ever choose to dock their entire sub fleet, even infrequently, they leave themselves open and are implicitly relying on the US's unwillingness to strike. Russia's most recent and most significant post-Soviet modernizations took effect well after 2006. Kwark is basically arguing from the point of view of an opinion piece that was proven wrong. Do you have a more up to date assessment of their capabilities I can read? So far none that disputes the evidence I read has been provided but I am entirely open to being informed. I'm not invested in my current opinion, it's simply that my current opinion is informed by an actual source whereas the opinion I am arguing against is just some random guy on the internet who thinks a single sighting somehow disproves a pattern of usually being docked.
I can give you the wiki page in Russian on Russia's nuclear arsenal. That is based on official government numbers, and almost certainly an underestimate (since you'd have to be a moron to tell other nations how many nukes you actually have). According to those numbers, 11 nuclear submarines with 160 nukes in the water, more in reserve. About 1000 ICBMs and 70 strategic bombers. Plenty more that are not currently operational.
|
It means to have a face reality meeting.
|
On August 12 2016 10:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
It means to have a face reality meeting.
I forgot to translate christian to english, thanks.
Sort of related, Trump just said something exceptionally stupid. It probably won't end well.
Donald Trump denied reports that RNC Chair Reince Priebus threatened to pull resources from him, but said tonight that if they did, he could always just stop funding the GOP.
On Fox News tonight, Trump repeatedly bragged to Eric Bolling about how much he’s funding his own campaign and how much he’s raising for the GOP, dismissing those dozens of Republicans who are demanding the RNC stop giving Trump party funds and instead focus on down-ballot races.
Trump said that while the report is inaccurate, “if it is true, that’s okay too, because all I’ll have to do is stop funding the Republican Party.”
Bolling, trying to walk Trump off that cliff, pointed out that the RNC has a lot of data and resources, asking him if all that would be at risk.
Trump responded, “I’ll let you know on the 9th––November 9th.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-if-rnc-pulls-resources-from-me-i-could-always-stop-funding-the-gop/
(Video at source)
|
On August 12 2016 10:08 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 10:04 oBlade wrote:
The internet says the Borei class didn't launch until 2007 so it's unexpected for them to show up in a 2006 source. Correct. The Typhoon is not Borei Class though, but Akula - which was in service at the time of Kwarks paper, and is also the class that was seen multiple times around the globe. I actually don't really understand why they completely ignored those, and miscounted the number of Delta IV boats, considering the US had a pretty good grasp on the amount of those.
One Delta IV has no missile silos since 1999, maybe that's it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-class_submarine#Deployment
And Akula isn't a SSBN, it says they're attack subs, so that's probably why they were omitted.
|
On August 12 2016 10:24 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 10:08 m4ini wrote:On August 12 2016 10:04 oBlade wrote:
The internet says the Borei class didn't launch until 2007 so it's unexpected for them to show up in a 2006 source. Correct. The Typhoon is not Borei Class though, but Akula - which was in service at the time of Kwarks paper, and is also the class that was seen multiple times around the globe. I actually don't really understand why they completely ignored those, and miscounted the number of Delta IV boats, considering the US had a pretty good grasp on the amount of those. One Delta IV has no missile silos since 1999, maybe that's it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-class_submarine#DeploymentAnd Akula isn't a SSBN, it says they're attack subs, so that's probably why they were omitted.
Difference between NATO reporting name and Russian name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akula-class_submarine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon-class_submarine <- this is the nuclear one
|
On August 12 2016 10:24 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2016 10:08 m4ini wrote:On August 12 2016 10:04 oBlade wrote:
The internet says the Borei class didn't launch until 2007 so it's unexpected for them to show up in a 2006 source. Correct. The Typhoon is not Borei Class though, but Akula - which was in service at the time of Kwarks paper, and is also the class that was seen multiple times around the globe. I actually don't really understand why they completely ignored those, and miscounted the number of Delta IV boats, considering the US had a pretty good grasp on the amount of those. One Delta IV has no missile silos since 1999, maybe that's it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-class_submarine#DeploymentAnd Akula isn't a SSBN, it says they're attack subs, so that's probably why they were omitted.
Oh okay, fair enough - didn't actually know that in regards to the Delta IV.
In regards to the Akula, it is a SSBN. There's some confusion due to the NATO designations. I'm talking about what the russians call "Projekt 941", Akula. The NATO calls them Typhoon class, but the russians apparently actually built an Akula class (Project 971), which is the attack sub you're referring to.
I'm talking this thing here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon-class_submarine
edit: damn those ninjas -.-
edit2: stupid designations got me confused now too - i'm out from here on, since i think two pages of completely off topic is enough for me in one day.
|
Okay, but the attack subs as far as I can tell are the ones that you say were spotted, which precipitated this whole thread.
The Typhoon, there's only one in service? I can't see why it wouldn't be in the paper, looks like a pure error, one that I think we've just now shown is not a hard mistake to make. But I think it reduces the degree to which that paper was wrong at the time.
I wonder whether intelligence agencies fuck with Wikipedia so poor countries have misinformation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
