Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How can a "non-superpower" have a sub like the Kursk?
Self | Nov 25, 2001 | The Duke

Posted on 11/25/2001 9:03:32 AM PST by The Duke

I've been watching Tony Snow this morning on the Fox News channel interview supposed military affairs expert Dr. Ken Adelman about current world events. As the two went out of their way to denegrate the significance of Russia on the world stage, I couldn't help but ponder for a moment the ambition that is required for any nation to produce a submarine like the Kursk.

I also find it interesting how any pundit who discusses the "once-superpower" status of Russia seems to squirm just the tiniest bit.

One finds oneself wondering in what other dangerous areas the Russians continue to expand militarily...and exactly to what extent Russia has in reality become less of a threat to the US(?)


TOPICS: Editorial; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last
To: All
I'd like to thank everyone for the very thoughtful answers. What I've starting to conclude is that it all depends on one's definition of "superpower".

If the definition of "superpower" is a nation that has the ability to strike a tremendous blow, then Russia should be considered as such, however if the defninition of "superpower" is the ability to *sustain* a large-scale military campaign then Russia falls short.

Interesting, though, how the pundits and our leadership seems to go out of their way to consistently avoid the first definition.

Also, it's interesting to contemplate how a nation fitting the first definition has tremendous potential for international extortion if nothing else. It makes a person wonder of all the "aid" we send to Russia might be perceived as extortion payments.

21 posted on 11/25/2001 9:50:38 AM PST by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
"They are all the more important as Europe sinks further and further into decadence and no longer can be relied on--if they ever could."

I agree.

22 posted on 11/25/2001 9:51:40 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
WEll...humm ....First you jave to understand the Soviet's paranoia. Then you have to understand what one of my very good Russian friends says - "We pretend to work - They pretend to pay us."

The programs that were developed were based upon good science and many stolen US technologies. However, the subs mostly were and are major POS's I would get on a Soviet era boat while it was tied to the pier. They added new meaning to the term "pigboat" especially the older ones. You can buy an old Soviet diesel boat for about $500k US on the internet.

BTW the russian economy is reported to be about the size of Connecticut's currently - not so hot.

23 posted on 11/25/2001 9:54:50 AM PST by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
You heard it here that the ruskies have a cruise missile that we cannot defend against. Their new planes are also far superior to ours. All they have been doing for the last few years is junking the old stuff and replacing it with new. Paid for by the US either through loans or via money spent on Chinese goods and recycled by arms sales. The Russians have been able to do this because they know we have no intent to bother them.
24 posted on 11/25/2001 10:06:44 AM PST by willyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
I also find it interesting how any pundit who discusses the "once-superpower" status of Russia. ........ Perhaps fellow Freepers could provide some enlightenment?

Any nation with the nuclear arsenal and nuclear delivery capabilities of Russia is still a "superpower" until such time as that nuclear arsenal and delivery capability rusts away and is no longer operational.

To call Russia a "once-superpower" until the latter occurs is dangerous self-delusion.

That is my contribution to enlightening the situation.

25 posted on 11/25/2001 10:16:31 AM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
BTW, there was a lot of inference tossed around that the US was implicated in the sinking of the Kursk. I recently heard she was salvaged and brought back to port. Any word on what the final determination was? Was is an issue of maintenance or was there some other factor that led to its demise?
26 posted on 11/25/2001 10:40:17 AM PST by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: putupon
" a country with 10,000 nuclear warheads no longer fits the definition of a "superpower"." = Upper Volta with missiles.
27 posted on 11/25/2001 1:51:59 PM PST by fourdeuce82d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
I suppose when we, in the west, talk about "Super Power" we mean the ability to sustain military dominance over an extended period of time. This implies that a nation's economy will not collapse because of said dominance.

Bada-bing.

28 posted on 11/25/2001 1:53:01 PM PST by fourdeuce82d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: marsh2
Torpedo blew up and sank her. The Russians finally admitted it.
29 posted on 11/25/2001 1:56:11 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
They do have nuclear weapons. That qualifies them as a power.

They are also broke. As in can't pay the rent.

They have oil. We need oil.

Bush just made a deal with Putin. Celebrate!

30 posted on 11/25/2001 2:04:33 PM PST by LibKill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeekDejure
Russia continues to prioritize its resources as if it is a Super Power. Our last "new" ICBMs were placed in operation during the Reagan Administration. Russia just fielded a new generation missile last year. They don't pay their soldiers diddly but they continue to produce new fighters, missiles and submarines.

This is why we will always win. Its not the weapon but the man who wields it. They had high tech material during their Afghan incursion. They didn't have the men with the training to win that war when the main concern of the men was "where is my next jolt of Vodka coming from?" I suggest that you read the book "Mig Pilot", (I believe that's the title), which chronicles the career and defection of a MIG-25 pilot in the middle 70s. The most telling story was of how the MIGs would be unable to fly because the hydraulic fluid, (because of the northern climate the Russians had chosen to use alcohol as their hydraulic fluid since it maintained its viscosity) was constantly being drunk(en) by the military men!!!The story about the visiting general and the planting of trees and application of green paint on the trees when they died before the general arrived. It's right out of Alice in Wonderland.

They can build all those pretty toys but it ain't gonna help. They're not paying their sceientist/technicians either. This is why President Bush's offer of friendship may be our most important anti-terrorist policy.

31 posted on 11/25/2001 2:07:36 PM PST by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
The Russians copy almost everything they build. If you look at the systems they build you can find our technology all through it. They do add some of their own ideas but it is usually because they can not copy everything such as shooting submarine missles from the water surface. They spent years trying to build aircraft to fly off a carrier. They had to build a jump ramp because the other systems failed.
32 posted on 11/25/2001 2:09:01 PM PST by bmwcyle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fourdeuce82d
Bada-bing.

Bada Boom! Hang it! Fire!

33 posted on 11/25/2001 2:20:56 PM PST by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: LibKill
They have oil. We need oil.

No the former members of the USSR have oil and russia wants their oil.
34 posted on 11/25/2001 2:29:09 PM PST by Libertarian_4_eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
"Favorite authors: Joseph Conrad, John D MacDonald, Isaac Asimov (which is a pity for me- they’re all dead) I also like James Ellroy for not pulling any punches."

check out Jim Thompson- Killer Inside Me, After Dark My Sweet- bloody minded stuff.

I like Ellroy, except he seems to take a perverse pleasure in getting almost *everything* related to firearms wrong.

number one gun- nuns & orphans in the open- three rounds Willie P...

35 posted on 11/25/2001 2:47:42 PM PST by fourdeuce82d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: fourdeuce82d
three rounds Willie P...

Sh*t! Where's that fuse wrench!

Thanks for the tips on the books. Amazon.com will be happier for you today!

36 posted on 11/25/2001 3:15:14 PM PST by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson