[Rictor]

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4131583

AFTER he was conscripted last autumn, says Peter, an 18-year-old from Korolyov, he was frequently forced by his older comrades to climb through a hole in the fence at his base and beg for cash in a local town. There were beatings with stools and belt buckles, burnings with a cigarette lighter, and he was forced to give blood every two weeks to bring in a few more roubles. In the end, he ran away.

“You know what graffiti I wrote on the fence the other day?” Dmitri Oparin, a conscript from Chelyabinsk, wrote to his family during his service in the Moscow region. “Let me out of here.” With his twin brother Alexander, Dmitri was drafted in June 2003. After an especially brutal beating by a sergeant, the brothers deserted last November. They killed two policemen and Alexander died during a siege. Dmitri has been diagnosed with schizophrenia.

“Conscription,” Tolstoy wrote of the mid-19th century Russian army, “was like death.” Things may have improved a bit for the 350,000-odd young Russians now drafted in two batches each year. But scarcely a week passes without a case of conscripts being murdered, killing themselves, freezing to death, or deserting and sometimes going on violent rampages. According to official figures, the armed forces suffer roughly 1,000 non-combat deaths every year. Military prosecutors uncovered 46 in just one week in June.

I always thought the Russian military was brutal, but they're losing more people yearly to hazings and suicides than the US is losing in Iraq.

There was also an article recently, though I can't find it now, about how the government is closing down the military section of most Russian universities, which is how many people managed to avoid doing active service. Thank God I'm not Russian.

[Nuke]

didnt the russians have problems with this back in the nepolionic era. conscrition just doesnt work. it makes for crappy soldiers. the russians should have learned their lesson by now.

[Zarax]

Russia cannot afford volunteer service so it has to resort to cheap levy troops...

[Mefustae]

Originally posted by Nuke
didnt the russians have problems with this back in the nepolionic era. conscrition just doesnt work. it makes for crappy soldiers. the russians should have learned their lesson by now.

They may have had crappy soldiers, but they sure as hell kicked the stuffing out of Napoleon's Troops...well...keeping in mind that the Russian Winter is one of the main parts of Russia's Defensive Garrison...

[Nuke]

you must have studied a different battle then i did. napoleon had his moments against the russians. but all great conquerers fall eventually.

[General Freak]

The Russians did well against the French in the battle of Borodino. The French won nothing but the right to say that they've won. Only when Russia herself is in grave danger do her troops start fighting properly.

Otherwise, like in World War I and Afghanistan, they're really not of that high quality. It's a Russian trait, but not unique to just Russia. If Russia's armed forces are in such a bad shape, would that mean you'd rather be a North Korean soldier? Perhaps try a few months in China's Red Army? They just hide away their internal military disorganization more than the Russians, who are at least in a semi-democratic country and is not nearly as paranoid and secretive as the Soviets were.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by Zarax
Russia cannot afford anything...

there, fixed the post.

[Zarax]

You keep forgetting that they are still mantaining the world's 2nd nuclear arsenal, which is not something cheap...

Rest assured that unlike their army you cannot say their ballistic missiles are inefficent...

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by General Freak
who are at least in a semi-democratic country and is not nearly as paranoid and secretive as the Soviets were.

We are talking about the country whose president is former head of the KGB, where all liberal media has effectively been destroyed and whose foreign policies are still hampered by the fact that they refuses to admit that they perhaps had done something wrong in the last 60 years or so?

[Mefustae]

Their Army was actually once even more efficient than their Nuclear Arsenal. During the Cold War, the Red Army was something to be feared, even though it was mostly good ol' fashined Soviet Propaganda. The thing to remember is that; the Red Army, while quite well equipped (at least compared to the Russian Navy - the less said about them after their loss to Japan in 1904 the better) was not an offensive Army. No matter what, the Soviets could not have conducted an effective invasion all the way to France, let alone come close to threatening the United States - a fact so poigninently shown during their actions in The Great War; and Afganistan, even though they were so unfairly outclassed by the opposition in that particular engagement (the Afganis had Rambo for Christsake!). Indeed, the Red Army was a defensive army, an army well suited to their climate, and capable of repelling an invasion, backed of course by the faithful Russian Winter - a true force to be reckoned with. But, i'll agree, Russia is by far past its Use-By Date, with its *remaining* power firmly rooted with its Nuclear Capabilities, but while inefficient, the Russian Army - as Gen. Freak so elloquently put - "Only when Russia herself is in grave danger do her troops start fighting properly."

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Zarax
You keep forgetting that they are still mantaining the world's 2nd nuclear arsenal, which is not something cheap...

Rest assured that unlike their army you cannot say their ballistic missiles are inefficent...

I'm not sure 'maintaining' would be the most correct term to use.

[Zarax]

Originally posted by aldo_14


I'm not sure 'maintaining' would be the most correct term to use.

Err, that's the problem of having english as 3rd language

What about "is still in possess of"?

[vyper]

Point 'em at China...

[Janos]

Originally posted by Mefustae
Their Army was actually once even more efficient than their Nuclear Arsenal. During the Cold War, the Red Army was something to be feared, even though it was mostly good ol' fashined Soviet Propaganda. The thing to remember is that; the Red Army, while quite well equipped (at least compared to the Russian Navy - the less said about them after their loss to Japan in 1904 the better) was not an offensive Army. No matter what, the Soviets could not have conducted an effective invasion all the way to France, let alone come close to threatening the United States - a fact so poigninently shown during their actions in The Great War; and Afganistan, even though they were so unfairly outclassed by the opposition in that particular engagement (the Afganis had Rambo for Christsake!). Indeed, the Red Army was a defensive army, an army well suited to their climate, and capable of repelling an invasion, backed of course by the faithful Russian Winter - a true force to be reckoned with. But, i'll agree, Russia is by far past its Use-By Date, with its *remaining* power firmly rooted with its Nuclear Capabilities, but while inefficient, the Russian Army - as Gen. Freak so elloquently put - "Only when Russia herself is in grave danger do her troops start fighting properly."

whaaaaaat

The Soviet Army was heavily mechanized and even doctrinely, not even to speak of strategically, an offensive one - that was the stated purpose and most likely the purpose de facto. Offensive was always number first choice and the way the entire army was organized and equipped.

[Zarax]

Originally posted by vyper
Point 'em at China...

Bad move, China got nukes AND the manpower to invade Russia...

[Janos]

Originally posted by Zarax


Bad move, China got nukes AND the manpower to invade Russia...

How many nukes does China have? Most recent estimates range from 20 to 300, and that's not much.

[Mefustae]

Originally posted by Janos

whaaaaaat

The Soviet Army was heavily mechanized and even doctrinely, not even to speak of strategically, an offensive one - that was the stated purpose and most likely the purpose de facto. Offensive was always number first choice and the way the entire army was organized and equipped.

I'm not saying that the Red Army was not designed to be an offensive army, i'm saying that in the end, it was a defensive force, its only reacted well in the face of invasion and direct attack. In many of the major outside engagements - ie. WWI, Afgan, etc. - the Red Army has fizzled (to the best of my knowledge, which albiet is limited, and keep in mind it's past midnight here and i'm totally talking out of my ass , but this is indeed my view on the subject)

Originally posted by Janos

How many nukes does China have? Most recent estimates range from 20 to 300, and that's not much.

Exactly! They're not a true Nuclear Power until they can go all out in terms of total planetary decimation, US-Style...

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by Janos


How many nukes does China have? Most recent estimates range from 20 to 300, and that's not much.

http://www.bash.org/?469107

From Bash.org
RvLeshrac> Terrorists> ****, maybe we shouldn't take hostages from countries whose people are more insane than us.
RvLeshrac> China> You give back hostages, or we kill all muslim.
NegaDuk> i think if they piss off china too much, they'll find that china, the US, and britain will turn the middle east into a big walmart parking lot
RvLeshrac> China> We use nuke. What we care you nuke us? We have billion more people.
NegaDuk> China> nuke beijing. we tried sars. it no work
RvLeshrac> China> We stop birth restriction, we make billion more. Three day.
NegaDuk> i think china's just being antisocial so someone will thin their population
RvLeshrac> Seriously.
RvLeshrac> China's answer to anything should be "We stop birth restrictions"
RvLeshrac> Stop flooding our markets with cheap goods, or we stop selling you soybeans. China> We stop birth restriction! US> ****. OK, OK! You can have the damned soybeans!
RvLeshrac> I bet that was the real reason Clinton gave them our satellite codes.
RvLeshrac> China> You give us code, or we flood world with chinese!
RvLeshrac> China> All your shirt shrink up like penis in arctic.
NightStar> damn those bad chinese laundry places
RvLeshrac> China> You never get decent haircut. You explain to women why no manicure.
RvLeshrac> China> We own you like Hong Kong.

[Zarax]

Originally posted by Janos


How many nukes does China have? Most recent estimates range from 20 to 300, and that's not much.

More than enough to bring any single country to its knees...

No country can go ahead for much once its 20 most important cities are wiped out of the map.

And 300 nukes are enough to bring the world back to at least a couple of centuries ago...

Do you people think that nukes are like conventional weapons?

[Janos]

Originally posted by Zarax



More than enough to bring any single country to its knees...

No country can go ahead for much once its 20 most important cities are wiped out of the map.

And 300 nukes are enough to bring the world back to at least a couple of centuries ago...

Do you people think that nukes are like conventional weapons?

Oh yes they can. They can do it very well.
 Maybe not in very long range, if the war gets drawn out and they have lost their highest echelons and they don't have a nuclear arsenal of their own. However, using your or even 200 nukes to destroy enemy's population centers has A) usually pretty big repercussions if you're facing a country with nuclear arsenal, B) little effect on your adversary's military power at that point, which is usually what wins the wars.

Strategic nukes are not always used against populace centers. Thats usually not even their primary mission. The real targets are much more important: enemy's nuclear assets - launch sites etc. - radar positions, transportation network, rallying points and command centers, manufacturing facilities. Also, some of these suck up far more than single warhead or even MIRV. You are familiar with the nuclear tactics against enemy nuclear missile shelters?

Also, you should maybe remember that if China has 20, or even 200, strategical intercontinental ballistic missiles, the russia has, what, over 2000? Then we have tactical weapons and submarine assets, and Russia is leading the war.

I am also wondering how 300 nukes - what size? - could bring the world back a several centuries. OK, you bomb every major city - you won't even destroy every one of them completely - and then what. That's about it. The point is, the difference between nuclear weapons and conventional weapons is not very clear - modern tactical nukes are very clean in terms of radiation and heavy elemements, and sometimes even yield smaller destructive power than most massive "conventional" explosives. Strategical nuclear assets are immensely powerful, but also insanely requiring in terms of research, R&D and economy.