Interesting, no?
Not really. Russian weapons have always had a reputation for being cheap and reliable, but otherwise underwhelming.
Yes it is interesting.
The fact that they were(still are?) our enemy, and produced questionable military gear, but are now buying the West's stuff is very telling. It's not like the Russians to admit that there stuff sucks... and it's very not like the Russians to buy Western military equipment.
*shrug*
As for the AK...
It is a tough weapon. You can throw it in a mudhole and run it over with a truck, and it will still fire.
Too bad it's accuracy isn't very good...
Or something like that.
As for the AK...
It is a tough weapon. You can throw it in a mudhole and run it over with a truck, and it will still fire.
Too bad it's accuracy isn't very good...
That's likely exactly why did Russians decide to ditch it. In this day and age wars are fought by small fire squads and snipers, not armies with entrenched cannons and huge machine guns, that make more noise than wounds. Kalashnikovs are good for rebels and terrorists, not professionals.
I don't think Russia is America's enemy anymore, but I don't think the relation is overly warm either. And maybe I should be bringing this up when Polish-Russian relations are finally getting better, but, historically, Russian politics were uncertain and hardly ever clear.
In case you think of Russia as enemy though, think that now you know exactly what they're armed with ;)
Yes it is interesting.
I disagree, clearly. You asked.
The fact that they were(still are?) our enemy, and produced questionable military gear, but are now buying the West's stuff is very telling. It's not like the Russians to admit that there stuff sucks... and it's very not like the Russians to buy Western military equipment.
*shrug*
People do not generaly buy what is not avaliable for sale to them.
As for the AK...
It is a tough weapon. You can throw it in a mudhole and run it over with a truck, and it will still fire.
Too bad it's accuracy isn't very good...
Cheap, reliable, otherwise underwhelming.
All in all, the situation strikes me as predictable and ultimatley very practical. The CEO of Mc Donalds probably does not eat Mc Rib for dinner, if there is better food avaliable.
I'm not gonna get in a pissing match with you.
I have worse people to piss with.
Hopefully not with me
The Ak though really is a superior weapon.
They could also be buying our stuff because of the terrorists using it. The AK is a sign of rebellion and guerilla fighters the world over. It really is seen as the Bad Guys Gun.
It's interesting, and an interesting predicatament they've found themselves in.
The Ak though really is a superior weapon.
They could also be buying our stuff because of the terrorists using it. The AK is a sign of rebellion and guerilla fighters the world over. It really is seen as the Bad Guys Gun.
Russia isn't as bad off as we think. they're not doing all that much better than us. The AK isn't one gun anymore. theres many smg's and pistol's as well as sniper rifles and lmg's based off of it. So assuming that the gun is now too unpopular due to insurgent use is definitly assuming too much. Thats like the jedi giving up the lightsaber because the sith use it. krvena zastava started the revolutionary weapon's best development and after investing so much into dev they would never think it obsolete. So now we arrive the the topic of russia buying better weapons....they want new stuff....that's it lol
The Ak though really is a superior weapon.
It's been brought up that its fairly simple construction made it really durable, suitable for harsh conditions, but its accuracy is lacking. It's good for terrorist, as it is easy to stock and good enough to shoot a few rounds to scare people, but pros need better equipment.
It is a gun from 1947 after all.
My $0.02
What I find interesting about this Russia buyin' Western gear thing is that some countries (Israel) apparently don't know anything about Russia and technology partnerships. See, the invite other countries' companies over to help them develop some sort of tech - oil drilling/refining and diamond mining are two great examples - and then, once the buildings are complete and their people are educated, they kick the foreigners out, seize the buildings and everything associated with them and then do it 'on their own'. They do this constantly. It's their MO. And France's ships? Yeah, they'll buy a few to meet a contract requirement and then? Then they'll cut a couple of 'em apart and start making their own. It's like what China does but with no finesse and all brute force. ;)
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articl...
A lot of the AR's jamming issues have been solved - with Eugene Stoner's advice - albeit too long after it's introduction as a military arm in a combat environment. Different powder and a chromed barrel make it less likely to jam. Thing is, it's expensive, terribly complicated compared to an AK and fires a relatively puny bullet. It all depends on where you find yourself. There's places where either will be better or worse. Urban environment? AK all the way. Short ranges, it has a huge punch. It's disadvantage compared to the AR here is that it's not nearly as adaptable. An AR platform can be set up - quickly - to do all sorts of stuff (including firing 7.62x39 ammo). So, it all depends on what you're after.
What I find interesting about this Russia buyin' Western gear thing is that some countries (Israel) apparently don't know anything about Russia and technology partnerships. See, the invite other countries' companies over to help them develop some sort of tech - oil drilling/refining and diamond mining are two great examples - and then, once the buildings are complete and their people are educated, they kick the foreigners out, seize the buildings and everything associated with them and then do it 'on their own'. They do this constantly. It's their MO. And France's ships? Yeah, they'll buy a few to meet a contract requirement and then? Then they'll cut a couple of 'em apart and start making their own. It's like what China does but with no finesse and all brute force. ;)
they've been doing that since peter the great lol
This may shed some additional light...
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articl...
It certainly did, thanks. I still say Russia will steal whatever they want anyway. China does it quietly, Russia does it in your face.
Why is everyone talking about the 47? Did Wizards suddenly turn into Slashdot were nobody reads the quoted article? It doesn't say anything about it.
Besides, the most common AK variant is the AKM, and the service rifle of the Russians is the 74M. Talking about the 47 is a bit 1977. Just saying. =)
Why is everyone talking about the 47? Did Wizards suddenly turn into Slashdot were nobody reads the quoted article? It doesn't say anything about it.
Besides, the most common AK variant is the AKM, and the service rifle of the Russians is the 74M. Talking about the 47 is a bit 1977. Just saying. =)
It's the only Russian gun we know ;P
And it served for such a long time it's hard to imagine Russian soldiers wielding anything else.
I was a Finnish Jaeger MP. I had to know. =)
Hmm. I'm trying to edit my profile, but it keeps saying editing is disabled? That's odd.
www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/article...
But Russia has noted the success of the American military, and their Western allies.
I'm curious as to their definition of "success"...
But Russia has noted the success of the American military, and their Western allies.
I'm curious as to their definition of "success"...
You're hopeless.
I'm honestly curious how they define success, considering the opinions on whether or not the American military is succesful seem terribly divided around the world. The new gear seems to be great for killing armies, but I don't think that the proper solution to IEDs or smoking out terrorists is "modern guns with more accuracy", so I'm kinda curious what they're planning to do.
You know it could just be me, but that article seems to point the Russians army into the direction of "Designed to go toe-to-toe with modern, big-ass armies and countries" (aka: the civilized world) instead of "Designed to weed out terrorism and insurgants" (aka: the third world)
Just saying; they don't appear to be readying their army to go fight a war on terror, they seem to be readying their army to be capable of battling it out with the US army.
You may or may not like my opinion, but you should at the very least ask yourself: do I like the fact that Russia defines "army success" by the ability to go toe-to-toe with the US military, or by the ability to go toe-to-toe with the US military's enemies?
Or maybe it is just me.
If you had bothered to read the article...
Ah well. It's an interesting concept that they think carrying around a lot of very large warheads will make wars go down with less civilian casualties... or I'm having a very wrong idea about what an ICBM actually is. Aren't those the big ones that level whole cities? Or are those the precision stuff like the tomahawks that target single structures as well?
Well, ICBM refeers to the range, not the size, persay. They tend to be the big ones, though. If your going to launch something halfway around the world, you tend to make the explosion worth the propellant. Having them tends to make the likelyhood of having to defend aginst a large scale invasion drop drastically.
Or you can use them to attack and cause enormous amounts of destruction.
Versatility win!
Well, ICBM refeers to the range, not the size, persay. They tend to be the big ones, though. If your going to launch something halfway around the world, you tend to make the explosion worth the propellant. Having them tends to make the likelyhood of having to defend aginst a large scale invasion drop drastically.
Or you can use them to attack and cause enormous amounts of destruction.
So?
They're weapons.
They deter attacks, or can be used to deliver a devestating blow to the enemy...
So?
Serving to deter, preventing something from happening.
What in the hell is wrong with you?
I remain skeptical when politicians and the military talk of weapons that will protect us from invasion when said weapons have a clear offensive use.
...
Having a primarily offensive (in the military sense) application is kind of the definition of a weapon, chief.
Chest bombs are a much less effective deterent weapon.
Say what you want about the US military: one thing that you cannot really argue aginst is that they have a very good track record of not being invaded with any signifigant success. Russia can say the same thing, but their historical method of doing it is, they decided, alot more bloody and costly in the long run. They have decided to move away from the "masses of mooks with cheap toys" tactic towards the "elite troops with shiny toys" tactic.
Globalization as defence only works if all the countries in question have powerfull standing armies. If you can make a fairly crappy army and steam roll your neighbors because they have no weapons to speak of, the gains of conquest will far outweigh whatever losses you may suffer to trade embargoes. They will be temporary, and only partially effective, as there is always someone willing to piss someone else off to make a buck, and usually someone who will do it just to piss that guy off. The land and resorces you gain could increase your nations powers in perpetuity.
The other option is to have a strong friend nation who can come bail you out (who you can then bitch about for the next 4 decades).
I don't know. Terrorism isn't about mass killing, it is about inspiring terror and it does a good job at that. 9/11 really left a mark, unless I am mistaken. Some could claim that the US lost another battle when the Patriot Act was voted.
And that detered how? Seems to have done the opposite to me.
Agreed. But what are the reason? The US are a democraty, so if too many of the Boys get killed politicians might get fired. And Capitalism. The US pays private compagnies big bucks for weapons, it is not improbable that hese compagnies investe into research to produce more efficient weapons. Weapons that will be sold for big bucks.
You are not making any sense here. Please rephrase as a coherent thought, if you would.
I agree, except for the perpetuity of the resources. Oil, gaz and mineral resources are limited. Samuel Huntington really elaborated on the idea of civilization with one leading nation at the center. So ti is more of blocks of nations vs. blocks of nations.
You define resources too narrowly: not all resorces are used up when used, and not all resorces are non renewable. Aquiring large quantities of usefull metal is technically a permanent find if you use it for trade of equally recylable products or for your own use, assuming proper recycling methods are taken. The same or similiar can be said for plant/climate based resorces, as well as boddies. Population can be a very precious resource.
"blocks" of nations is not an improvment over anything. It is what we have now and what we have had as far back as the first world war. Blocks of nations are largely responsible for both world wars being world wars instead of local wars. In other words, it is not an improvment because it is a) a largely neutral state of being, having both benifits and drawbacks in largely equal ammounts and b) exactly what we already have.
When governments do not want Iran to get the Bomb, it is a way of saying they want to prevent Iran to be untouchable. Maybe peace is indeed getting ready for war.
Actually, a big reason that Iran's nuclear ambitions are opposed is that they have this funny habit of talking about how certain nations should be removed from the face of the Earth - and mean it. So it's kinda in those nations' best interest to make sure the psychopaths in power there don't ever get weapons that can erase nations from the face of the Earth. Cuz there's a fair chance they'd actually try to do it.
Also, there's plenty of morons in the USA that talk about removing certian nations from the face of the earth. We have a few on these very forums. It's for that same reason I'm opposed to all nuclear ambitions.
Definately effective, just not very efficient.
Also, there's plenty of morons in the USA that talk about removing certian nations from the face of the earth. We have a few on these very forums. It's for that same reason I'm opposed to all nuclear ambitions.
Well, the morons doin' it in Iran are the ones that, you know, make decisions like that. Ahmadnejad himself has led chants of 'death to Israel, death to the West'. Kinda different than some schlub drinkin' High Life an' watchin' NASCAR with his buddies, IMO.
Anyhoo, yeah, nukes are bad. But those worms won't be put back into the can any time soon.
Well, the morons doin' it in Iran are the ones that, you know, make decisions like that. Ahmadnejad himself has led chants of 'death to Israel, death to the West'. Kinda different than some schlub drinkin' High Life an' watchin' NASCAR with his buddies, IMO.
Technically, if you are really in a democracy, it's not very different. You just need more people to say it and then one of them will be pulling the strings in the USA as well. And I have this feeling that the number is growing (but no statistics to back it up obv... just gut feeling)
Technically, if you are really in a democracy, it's not very different. You just need more people to say it and then one of them will be pulling the strings in the USA as well. And I have this feeling that the number is growing (but no statistics to back it up obv... just gut feeling)
True enough. We're a long ways from that, though. I do see how you'd feel that the numbers were increasing and, to be honest, I can see it as well. I'm not positive it's actually happening, but when those in control use extremist positions to differentiate themselves, well, it's inevitible that their backers will eventually adopt the rhetoric themselves. And become more extreme, too. But I wouldn't worry about the USA wiping anyone off the map any time soon. We just can't do it. Cuz we still think we're better than anyone we'd do it to. Sounds counterintuitive, but the way we're 'better' is that we don't stoop to those sort of shenanigans, you see. But it's all just a perception and those can change all too easily.
I do know about the extremist situation though, they're doing that here as well. Our whole political system is upside down because of a new guy (Wilders, whose name you've probably heard plenty of time) that throw around extremist views and has managed to get a very large number of votes in his first year.
His views are apparently extreme enough that we've received a friendly notice from the Taliban that if we put him in power, they'll come over and bomb the $#%# out of us as well.
I certainly hope you're right
I do know about the extremist situation though, they're doing that here as well. Our whole political system is upside down because of a new guy (Wilders, whose name you've probably heard plenty of time) that throw around extremist views and has managed to get a very large number of votes in his first year.
His views are apparently extreme enough that we've received a friendly notice from the Taliban that if we put him in power, they'll come over and bomb the $#%# out of us as well.
So, you want your leaders to be intimidated and/or blackmailed?
Your lack of courage and defiance doesn't really surprise me...
I thought you needed courage to be defiante.
No, not really.
You can be stoopid and defiant ...
I'm not scared of bomb threats or anything. It was just illustrating a point.
I thought you needed courage to be defiante.
No, not really.
You can be stoopid and defiant ...
The opposite of "courageous" is "cowardly".
You can be stupid and courageous without being a logical impossibility.
What is in your sig adhadh?
Do you mean the "motto" (I used to have an excerpt from "Don't Damn Me" by Guns N' Roses there, but deemed it too long). It's sort of an excuse for being opinionated (though I used to be more reserved about sharing my views ;P)
Maybe the link to my dA page? I'm an artist you know, right now receiving formal education.
Or do you mean the Xfire miniprofile bar? That's a shortened version of my full Xfire profile. It's a communicator and a front end for PC games. It counts how much time have people wasted playing video games. As you can see I'm a fan of Dark Crusade :D
Calling another poster a troll is a CoC violation. It's considered 'baiting'. If it was done in jest, you still need to be careful as it can be taken out of context and reported and you will get modded. 'Course this stupid post could probably be interpreted as baiting even though it's just a casual, harmless FYI.
thanks for telling me zombie but amphibian's just picking on an easy target and thats not cool cuz we all know i'm not very smart -.-
and thats not cool cuz we all know i'm not very smart -.-
There are less smart people than you on here...
But if one says ridiculous and ignorant things, they will get a response telling them about it... and that's not really baiting.
(Not saying that you Jesse, specifically and habitually, say ridiculous and ignorant things, just that it happens frequently)
thnx for helping me understandyou's trollin frog boy I ain't conscerned with you. I did google xfire but I didn't understand. So how about you don't read my posts if it hurts your feelings so much kthnxbye toad troller <3
you's trollin frog boy I ain't conscerned with you. I did google xfire but I didn't understand. So how about you don't read my posts if it hurts your feelings so much kthnxbye toad troller <3
I'm sorry
I feel bad about that now