Russia Loses Planes to Own Missile Systems
The basic ineptness of the Russian military is further exposed by its inability to protect its planes against missile systems designed in Russia. This is not surprising, since the Russian military sits atop an inept science and technology infrastructure. When the Ukraine joins NATO, Russia will begin feeling the pinch.
The Russians have admitted to losing four aircraft (three Su-25 ground attack bombers and a Tu-22 bomber flying a reconnaissance mission.) Most, or all, appear to have been brought down by the SA-11 BukM1 surface-to-air missile systems...Georgia claims to have downed ten Russian aircraft as of August 11th, and the true air losses won't be known until photos appear of all the aircraft wreckage. It is interesting that Russia was unable to come up with effective countermeasures against missile systems they had designed. _strategypage_via_InstapunditRussia is losing half its population every 40 years, due to high death rates and low birth rates. Meanwhile, Russia's Muslim population is exploding rapidly, as are the Muslim populations of Russia's central Asian neighbors. And don't forget China, who desperately needs Siberian mineral assets.
Labels: Russia
posted by al fin at 8:40 am
7 Comments:
Yay, we won. Russia lost some planes.
Friendly fire would never happen to us. Just ask the Tillman family.
The loss in population is long preceded by a severe reduction in the number of military age cannon fodder.
Right, Carl. Russian women are unwilling to bear children for the motherland, and Russian men are unwilling to fight for it. Hence the ragtag conscript army.
The force in Georgia is the best trained and equipped tiny fraction of the Russian forces. And most of their planes are probably crashing due to lack of maintenance, rather than Georgian missiles.
As to Russian equipment, yeah maybe it ain't so good, but they have sure captured a lot of our spiffy stuff to copy in the last few days.
As to population. There are a lot of Americans who are not pulling there weight here. I'm not one of them. I have three kids.
So how many offspring have the baby making machines, Al and Carl?
I sometimes wonder why people who call themselves "anti-war" go to such lengths to defend the vicious war-making of tyrants. Curious, that.
I have disowned all but three of my children. They show an alarming intellectual precocity, and an unfortunate tendency to hunt down drunken blog commenters and play elaborate practical jokes on them.
I defend no tyrant. I like neither Putin nor Bush nor that Sash whatever his name is.
Noting the lose of the equipment or that our country was made to look foolish is hardly praise for Vlad. The man had a good inning, so noted.
What is silly is your triumphalism in the face of disaster. You may not agree with my belief in Neutralism, but logic demands that you say, we screwed up, let's think about what needs to change.
As a neutralist, I support the foreign policy of the founders. If someone attacks us, I want to whup them. In that sense, to call moi anti war is an error. I think that makes more sense than wanting to whup someone who hasn't attacked us. Got it?
Ah, but the only triumphalism being exhibited here is your rather inebriated joy over Russian victories over the tiniest of its neighbors.
The ongoing catastrophe that is Russia needs no cheering on from the likes of yourself.
<< Home