Russian warships on standby to sail to Gulf

Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow
Friday January 10, 2003
The Guardian

Russia has put three warships on standby to go to the Persian Gulf within the next month to protect its "national interests" in the event of an American invasion of Iraq.
Russia's Pacific fleet has been ordered by the central command to prepare two cruisers and a fuel tanker for immediate deployment to the Gulf.

The move will heighten tension between Moscow and Washington, who both have interests in Iraq's oilfields.

The Marshal Shaposhnikov and the Admiral Panteleyev cruisers would be called upon to defend Russian "national interests" in the Gulf if the conflict between Iraq and the US escalates.


more at (http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,872020,00.html)

Has russia even had time to wipe the rust off its naval fleet?

But, really, who cares? Russia won't make any more than passing statements to help Iraq at this point in time.

Seeing as how this article comes from the Guardian, I'm more than inclined to question its purpose as well as the assumptions it leads to.

can they even make it all the way to the gulf?

what are you going to do if they fire?

you fire at them and you have traped china like australia is traped by YOU

^Are you on crack?

This is a good lesson about the dangers of drug use everyone. He obviously needs to go to rehab.

aitrus, I take that to mean you can't come up with an intelligent reply

And yes they can make it to the gulf, and were there a few months ago carrying out exercises.

no, it means that his post make very little sense.

no it doesn't if you read what he is saying.

Essentially what Asguard is saying is what happens if Russia fires on an American or ally target, and you fire back at them? Russia and china have been strengthening their relations, and if America fires on one of the Russian boats, there is a good chance China would then enter the conflict in support of Russia.

What you interpret makes sense, but... it does not make sense when compared to his post.

you fire at them and you have traped china like australia is traped by YOU

(I will assume 'YOU' means the US)

(US) has trapped China like Australia is trapped by (US)

So somehow, by firing *back* on Russian ships, China becomes "traped" and will then enter the conflict in support of Russia. just like Australia is "traped" by the US?

I'm sorry how do these relate? Does Australia then ally with Russia?

meaning Aussie is in this conflict, I think as part of their ANZUS treaty with America. Someone can clarify that for me but I think under that treaty Australia has to fight alongside America? Thus china is pulled in by a treaty to fight alongside Russia in any conflict.

Understandable that way?

thank you i was in a hurry because i had to take my sisters to work

sorry for that

but yes australia is traped into going cause of ANZUS and our idiot of a PM

china and russia have a similar mutual defence treaty i belive so if the US fire back china have to take that as an atack on THEM and you are now fighting iraq, russia china and i serverly doubt that NK would stay out of it in that cause seeing as they are ailed to china

So your entire argument is...

Russia sends fleet to middle east, mumble mumble mumble shots are fired mumble mumble mumble australia sinks under the ocean.

Okay, yeah.

your a moron

my post was how is the US going to servive a war with basicaly everyone on the planet

Originally posted by Asguard
your a moron

my post was how is the US going to servive a war with basicaly everyone on the planet Your post should, instead, be about how the world will survive a war with the United States.

Unlike Russia, our nuclear weapons don't have a 10% chance of getting off the ground. There is no nation that can withstand a barrage by a single nuclear submarine. And there is no segment of civilization that can survive an assault by our 6,000+ nuclear warheads.

Get it through your paper-maché skull: stop daydreaming, nuclear powers don't fight wars, no matter how much you wish that there would one day be some sort of cosmic justice.

does anyone ELSE think that rome cant fall?

Originally posted by Asguard
does anyone ELSE think that rome cant fall? Rome didn't have thermal-nuclear warheads.

china and russia have a similar mutual defence treaty i belive so if the US fire back china have to take that as an atack on THEM

Yeah, but your scenario was that Russia fires FIRST on the US. I very much doubt that a defense treaty applies when one of the constituents is the aggresor. I doubt China would join with Russia if that is the case.

umm

then how the hell does australia get sucked into your stupid wars?

then how the hell does australia get sucked into your stupid wars?

My wars? I don't have wars.

Which wars specifically was Australia "sucked" into by a defense treaty with America AND that had hostilities begun by the US?

adam can give you the full list but lets START with vietnam and desert storm

afganistan

IRAQ

we have NEVER started a war and only ocupide one counrty (ie east temor because they asked us too)

Originally posted by Asguard
then how the hell does australia get sucked into your stupid wars? presumably, by choice.

It seems so far that you are saying a lot of "we have so many nukes that we can kick anyone's arse". Well, that's just ducky. What you seem to be ignoring is that China has 70-odd submarines and nuclear weapons, and Russia has a good 60-odd submarines and nuclear weapons. It would only take a couple of subs to completely ruin the USA. This doesn't even take into account aircraft deliveries and satellite launched nukes. The USA can nuke the hell out of anyone, true, but then if they piss off China or Russia too much, the USA is toast.

As for joint military actions, since WW2 Australia has lent the USA troops and more in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Aghanistan, East Timor (thirty years ago), and probably more.

Which defense treaties required Australia to enter Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan?

try ANZUS

Originally posted by Adam
It seems so far that you are saying a lot of "we have so many nukes that we can kick anyone's arse". Well, that's just ducky. What you seem to be ignoring is that China has 70-odd submarines and nuclear weapons, and Russia has a good 60-odd submarines and nuclear weapons. It would only take a couple of subs to completely ruin the USA. This doesn't even take into account aircraft deliveries and satellite launched nukes. The USA can nuke the hell out of anyone, true, but then if they piss off China or Russia too much, the USA is toast.It's just so exciting, to hear the world's youth rediscover Mutually Assured Destruction and other elements of game theory. Perhaps one day Adam will realize that this is why superpowers don't fight each other (except for in proxy wars), and how he just cited an example of the Prisoner's Dilemma.
As for joint military actions, since WW2 Australia has lent the USA troops and more in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Aghanistan, East Timor (thirty years ago), and probably more.
Originally posted by Asguard
try ANZUS From what i gather, ANZUS does not require that Australia cooperate with US military or political goals, but in the interest of maintaining of a strong alliance, they do so by choice.
http://www.awm.gov.au/korea/origins/anzus/anzus.htm

China has 70-odd submarines and nuclear weapons, and Russia has a good 60-odd submarines and nuclear weapons.
Russia only has 17 ballistic-missile subs (the ones which can fire nukes), but many of them are inoperable.

China has 1

since WW2 Australia has lent the USA troops and more in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Aghanistan, East Timor

Many of these were UN operations, not US ops.

name ONE which was a UN op?

Korea, Somalia, East Timor, Yugoslavia was Nato on behalf of the UN, Iraq was authorized by UN.

It's just so exciting, to hear the world's youth rediscover Mutually Assured Destruction and other elements of game theory. Perhaps one day Adam will realize that this is why superpowers don't fight each other (except for in proxy wars), and how he just cited an example of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

Actually I was not referring to MAD at all. MAD policy involves complete destruction not only of two nuclear superpowers, but also of all supporting states. The reason I did not mention MAD policy is because the scenario does not necessarily include supporting states.

I don't wish to have to explain such basic concepts every time. Perhaps you should leave sciforums, take up reading, and come back in a few years.


From what i gather, ANZUS does not require that Australia cooperate with US military or political goals, but in the interest of maintaining of a strong alliance, they do so by choice.
http://www.awm.gov.au/korea/origins/anzus/anzus.htm
The reason Australia lends military and diplomatic support to the USA is because the USA is one of our major trading partners.

somalia was a US op when there happened to be a UN op there as well

Originally posted by Asguard
somalia was a US op when there happened to be a UN op there as well http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosomi.htm

On 3 December 1992, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 794(1992). The Council welcomed the United States offer to help create a secure environment for the delivery of humanitarian aid in Somalia and authorized, under Chapter VII of the Charter, the use of "all necessary means" to do so. Resolution 794 asked States to provide military forces and to make contributions in cash or kind for the operation. Appropriate mechanisms for coordination between the United Nations and those military forces were also to be established by the Secretary-General and States participating in the operation.

What?

Interesting link Kyle, but I do find fault in it where it says "In 1986, New Zealand banned the entry of US Navy ships into their ports in the belief that they were carrying nuclear weapons or were nuclear-powered" NZ didn't ban US Navy Ships, we banned any Nuclear powered ship from our waters, and also any ship carrying nuclear weapons, so I guess this site has a few facts wrong, argh, :confused: America was free to continue visiting our ports as long as it wasn't with nuclear powered ships. Rather stupid of the US, they continued to maintain their Antarctica base in NZ while spitting the dummy over that. And to my understanding it was signed in San Francisco not Canberra, Adam?

BTW Kyle, you'd be surprised just how close we have come to Russia or America launching a nuclear strike against the other.

Originally posted by aitrus
Russia only has 17 ballistic-missile subs (the ones which can fire nukes), but many of them are inoperable.

China has 1


You're wrong. Again.


SBS World Guide, Tenth Edition.

USA
Total armed forces: 1.3715 million.
Reserves: 1.3033 million.
Strategic command:
- 432 submarine-launched ballistic missiles.
- 550 silo-based intercontintental ballistic missiles.
Army: 469,300.
- 7,684 main battle tanks.
Navy: 369,800.
- 57 tactical submarines.
- 18 strategic nuclear submarines.
- 12 aircraft carriers.
- 27 cruisers.
- 54 destroyers.
- 37 frigates.
- 21 coastal patrol vessels.
Naval air: 76,548.
- 403 main battle tanks.
Air Force: 361,400.
- 1,224 combat aircraft.
- 208 strategic bombers.
Paramiltary: 53,000 civil air patrol.

China:
Total armed forces: 2.48 million.
Reserves: 1.2 million.
Army: 1.83 million.
- 8,300 main battle tanks.
- 2,000 light tanks.
Navy: 230,000.
- 71 submarines.
- 18 destroyers.
- 35 frigates.
- 676 coastal patrol vessels.
Naval Air Force: 25,000.
- 541 shore-based combat aircraft.
- 25 armed helicopters.
Air Force: 420,000.
- 3,520 combat aircraft.
Paramilitary: 1.1 million.

Russia:
Total armed forces: 1 million.
Reserves: 20 million.
Strategic Deterrent Forces: 149,000.
- 332 missiles in 21 operational ballistic missile submarines.
- 260 missiles in 17 non-operational ballistic missiles submarines.
- 771 intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Army: 348,000.
- 15,500 main battle tanks.
- 200 light tanks.
- 1,000 attack helicopters.
Navy: 1.1715 million.
- 21 strategic submarines.
- 44 tactical submarines.
- 1 aircraft carrier.
- 7 cruisers.
- 17 destroyers.
- 10 frigates.
- 112 coastal patrol vessels.
Naval Aviation: 35,000.
- 329 combat aircraft.
- 387 armed helicopters.
Marines: 9,500.
- 130 main battle tanks.
Air Force: 184,600.
- 1,855 combat aircraft.
- 250+ long range aircraft.
- 2,150 SAM batteries.
Paramilitary: 196,000.


Some useful links:

USA
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Military
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/index.html

China
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Military
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/index.html

Russia
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rs.html#Military
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/index.html

Originally posted by RichardJA
Interesting link Kyle, but I do find fault in it where it says "In 1986, New Zealand banned the entry of US Navy ships into their ports in the belief that they were carrying nuclear weapons or were nuclear-powered" NZ didn't ban US Navy Ships, we banned any Nuclear powered ship from our waters, and also any ship carrying nuclear weapons, so I guess this site has a few facts wrong, argh, :confused: America was free to continue visiting our ports as long as it wasn't with nuclear powered ships. Rather stupid of the US, they continued to maintain their Antarctica base in NZ while spitting the dummy over that. And to my understanding it was signed in San Francisco not Canberra, Adam?That's the United Nations website.
BTW Kyle, you'd be surprised just how close we have come to Russia or America launching a nuclear strike against the other. No shit.

no Kyle, I mean the Aussie site on ANZUS, not the UN one. Too busy packing to read too many sites.

The document was signed in San Francisco 1st September, 1951 between Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America, although it did not come into force until 29th April, 1952.

http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/anzus/index.html



Australian Treaty Series 1952 No 2

DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

CANBERRA

Security Treaty between Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America [ANZUS]

(San Francisco, 1 September 1951)

Entry into force generally: 29 April 1952

AUSTRALIAN TREATY SERIES

1952 No. 2

Australian Government Publishing Service

Canberra

(c) Commonwealth of Australia 1997

SECURITY TREATY BETWEEN AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

THE PARTIES TO THIS TREATY,

REAFFIRMING their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all Governments, and desiring to strengthen the fabric of peace in the Pacific Area,

NOTING that the United States already has arrangements pursuant to which its armed forces are stationed in the Philippines, and has armed forces and administrative responsibilities in the Ryukyus, and upon the coming into force of the Japanese Peace Treaty may also station armed forces in and about Japan to assist in the preservation of peace and security in the Japan Area,

RECOGNIZING that Australia and New Zealand as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations have military obligations outside as well as within the Pacific Area,

DESIRING to declare publicly and formally their sense of unity, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that any of them stand alone in the Pacific Area, and

DESIRING further to coordinate their efforts for collective defense for the preservation of peace and security pending the development of a more comprehensive system of regional security in the Pacific Area,

THEREFORE DECLARE AND AGREE as follows:

Article I

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article II

In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty the Parties separately and jointly by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

Article III

The Parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened in the Pacific.

Article IV

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article V

For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.

Article VI

This Treaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations or the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article VII

The Parties hereby establish a Council, consisting of their Foreign Ministers or their Deputies, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council should be so organized as to be able to meet at any time.

Article VIII

Pending the development of a more comprehensive system of regional security in the Pacific Area and the development by the United Nations of more effective means to maintain international peace and security, the Council, established by Article VII, is authorized to maintain a consultative relationship with States, Regional Organizations, Associations of States or other authorities in the Pacific Area in a position to further the purposes of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of that Area.

Article IX

This Treaty shall be ratified by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of Australia, which will notify each of the other signatories of such deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force as soon as the ratifications of the signatories have been deposited.[1]

Article X

This Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely. Any Party may cease to be a member of the Council established by Article VII one year after notice has been given to the Government of Australia, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of such notice.

Article XI

This Treaty in the English language shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of Australia. Duly certified copies thereof will be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of each of the other signatories.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty.

DONE at the city of San Francisco this first day of September, 1951.

FOR AUSTRALIA:

[Signed:]

PERCY C SPENDER

FOR NEW ZEALAND:

[Signed:]

C A BERENDSEN

FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

[Signed:]

DEAN ACHESON

JOHN FOSTER DULLES

ALEXANDER WILEY

JOHN J SPARKMAN

[1] Instruments of ratification were deposited for Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America 29 April 1952, on which date the Treaty entered into force.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1952/2.html

You're wrong. Again.

Incorrect.

There are different types of submarines. Attack submarines, ballistic missle submarines, and guided missile submarines. The only ones that can launch nuclear warheads are ballistic-missile submarines. Notice how your stats do not distinguish between the type?
------------------
China
- 71 submarines.
Russia
- 21 strategic submarines.
- 44 tactical submarines.
-------------------

Yes, Russia and China have that many submarines, BUT,
Like I said, Russia has 17 that can launch nukes, many unoperational. China has 1 that can launch nukes, in refit.

http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/

Again, I am not wrong. I never said China and Russia didnt have that many subs. If you had read my post, you would have seen that I was referring to ballistic-missile subs, THE ONES THAT CAN FIRE NUKES. (I was replying to your post about their abilities to nuke the US)
You are wrong, as before.

Originally posted by aitrus

Notice how your stats do not distinguish between the type?

Yes, Russia and China have that many submarines, BUT,
Like I said, Russia has 17 that can launch nukes, many unoperational. China has 1 that can launch nukes, in refit.


Read more carefully.


- 332 missiles in 21 operational ballistic missile submarines.
- 260 missiles in 17 non-operational ballistic missiles submarines.

I don't need to read more closely. Sorry, but although it did list those numbers there, I couldn't go by them becuase they appear to be highly inflated over what I could find at most websites. What constitues active and inactive must have very slim requirements, since many subs are barely operable or now dismantled. Those numbers are what Russia goes by, but the actual statistics according to most are what I listed, or less.