What Russia's deadliest nuclear sub could do to the US

The original post is a load of Putin Droppings. Social Media efforts by the Kremlin intended to erode American's confidence in their government.

Nobody doubts Russian or American capability to end all life of Earth. Mutual Assured Destruction is nothing new. Russia knows perfectly well that American ballistic missile submarines can do to Russia what Russia's submarines can do to us. Add land and air based weapons to that mix and there are so many ways we can kill each other multiple times over it would take a madman with an End of Days delusion to start the fight.

Putin is no madman. He's no hero either, just a smart and capable KGB thug who rose to the top of the thug pile.

There is no winning in nuclear war and everyone knows it.

The thugs included.

 

A-ha! Yes, I see! Now I understand why you are having such difficulties in coming to terms with the Kuznetsov. I don't blame you because I also didn't understand at first. You see Russia really did want to build an aircraft carrier .... so you are right about that, but because of the Montreax Agreement they built a cruiser instead.

 

Trump just needs to build a little taller wall to keep those pesky missles out.

 

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About The Kuznetsov* (*But Were Afraid to Ask)



http://www.military-today.com/navy/kuznetsov_class.htm

 

No, they built an aircraft carrier and they just call it a cruiser to get around the Montreax Agreement. But how about we address your purposeful selective editing of the quote from Military Today that you used to claim the Kuznetsov class could never be considered true carriers when that quote is actually about the Kiev class? Why did you deliberately leave out the beginning of the quote? How much does the Kremlin pay you?

 

Yes, notice how it is repeatedly called an aircraft carrier.

 

Lol....this looks like it's cut&pasted....dude, pull your head outta the Kremlin puppets poop chute....it's an ACC....

 

You are mistaken but I see how it's an easy mistake to make. They avoided problems with the Montreax Agreement by building a vessel that falls into the Cruiser category yet incorporates as much of the advantages of an aircraft carrier without putting it into the carrier class. Russians are smart.

Yes.

I was trying to be concise by paraphrasing, not realizing that particular part should not have been included. That is why I finally screen-shot the whole thing to avoid making any further mistake.

For what reason would they do that?

 

Either you need glasses or you are not paying attention: "Kruznetzov Class - Heavy Aviation Cruiser".
It says so right ubove the photo. That's a screenshot from the link. I have changed nothing in it.

Potty talk is very childish.

 

There is no mistake to make bob, that is an Aircraft Carrier. Admittedly it is a poorly designed and poorly operated one, but a carrier nonetheless. China has an Aircraft Carrier that started life in Russia as the sister ship to the Kuznetsov. It is the same size, same displacement and similar air wing. It is classified as an Aircraft Carrier. So are smaller ships operated by France, Italy, Spain, India and other nations.

That is a ship specifically designed to take off and land fixed wing aircraft without STOL technology. It displaces almost twice as much as the largest cruiser in the world. In fact, it displaces as much as a battleship. The Russians can call it a minesweeper if they wish, it is still an Aircraft Carrier.

 

Not. Hypocrisy is to declare that Alaska is American, because the United States bought it, but the Baltic states are not Russian, despite the fact that Russia bought it.
Or Texas is American, because it voluntarily joined the United States, but the Crimea is not Russian, despite the fact that it voluntarily joined Russia.

 

New York is compensation.

 

Not everything depends on our desires. Of course, Russians do not want war. Russia is the most peaceful country in the world. But the Russians were forced to defend themselves. Because the madmen in the White House and the Pentagon will provoke a third world war.
And of course, after the unconditional victory of Russia in this war, Alaska, California, New York and a number of other states will become part of Russia.
This is already a tradition. Russia after each war acquires new territories. Therefore, Russia is the largest country in the world. It is obvious.

 

OK, let’s get down to brass tacks. We’ll do it by the numbers and see where it takes us. I’ll start and you tell me if I am wrong and make your own corrections. OK?

* There are ships called “Cruisers” and there are ships called “Aircraft-carriers”. We agree?

* There are characteristics that are shared by both but not all characteristics are identical otherwise they could not be distinguished as one or the other. We agree?

* The Montreax Agreement makes one or more stipulations that prevent one or the other vessel (Cruiser, Aircraft-carrier) from carrying out a certain task(s) or manoeuvre(s). Is this a fair statement?

* Now, be specific and tell me what the relevant Montreax Agreement stipulation is (are) that would make a Cruiser able to do what an aircraft-carrier would not be allowed to do under the Montreal Agreement. I am asking for the reason why Russia would want to have their vessel classified a Cruiser rather than an Aircraft-carrier. Tell me. I am listening.

 

You keep referring to (but misspelling) the Montreux Convention. I assume you know that it governs the passage of shipping through the Dardenelles and the Bosphorous. It restricts the passage of warships greater than 15,000 tons in displacement unless they are capital ships - battleships or cruisers. Aircraft carriers are NOT included as capital ships & therefore could be banned from transiting the straits.

The Montreux Convention defines Aircraft Carriers thus:

That describes the Kuznetsov perfectly. Its primary purpose is carrying and operating aircraft, though it is not very good at it. It is significantly larger than any cruiser ever built. The cruisers Russia currently operates are less than half that displacement, ans they are the largest in the world.

So, whatever Russia calls this in order to get around a treaty provision, this is an Aircraft Carrier. The identical ship operated by China is classified as such. Strapping a few extra missiles to it would not and does not change that.

 

I have not misquoted those who have introduced it into the discussion.

I assume but I don't know. That is why I am asking you.

I understand, so far.

"Not included as capital ships" by the limitation of dry tonnage or by its' classification (declared or assigned) ... or both?

You say "could" be banned from transiting the straights. Are there mitigating factors making the decision to allow passage by ships displaying Kuznetsov's specifications?

You say "its' primary purpose". Is this Russia's own declaration, the Montreux Convention's judgement, or your verdict? And is "primary purpose" (rather than secondary) a factor in classifying a vessel?

That is conjecture.

 

Here's the problem. China experiments with killer satellites and America declares
it will build a space force.
Russia cheats on arms treaties and America pulls out of the treaties.

America is seen as the one who abrogates treaties and militarizes space. It will be
in the history books, forever. And this is why nations like Russia and China declare
nothing - they just wait for America to react to their cheating, then blame America
for what they started, and are about to ramp up.

 

You still appear not to understand much about the Montreaux Convention, which is unfortunate as you keep referring to it. That is a situation you could have fixed some time ago and with great ease. I suggest you do the reading. It isn't hard.

I have put forth a well researched & well argued case and in some cases repeated my points, which I find tedious. There is simply no sane universe in which that ship is anything other than an Aircraft Carrier. If you want to believe otherwise because Russia says different then have at it. Can't for the life of me work out why an intelligent person would choose that course, but it isn't my problem.

You appear to have a lot more spare time than me. I have already dedicated as much as I care to. So, if the point of all this was just to keep arguing until everyone else gets bored then you can claim whatever 'victory' that brings.

 

You're ducking out of an opportunity to put your view forward? I gave you too much credit. All I wanted to do was find out what makes the ship uneligible for being classified a Cruiser and if it is considered "an exception" for whatever reason ..... or not. But somehow you see it as an attack. I didn't put your credibility in question nor did I even step on your toes.

 

The kremlin isn't paying him silly. There are no russian on this forum. What you have instead is a few troll accounts, probably belonging to the same person, who are there to provoke over sensible posters like yourself. If you take a step back and analyze the style you'll see it plainly for what it is.

This forum is just a shadow of what it once was. Most of the really interesting people have either left or only occasionaly visit. The mods tolerate the trolls since they're keeping the post count at an acceptable level. Without them, this board would be pretty dead. If you want to have a serious discussion about politics or the military, this board isn't the place.

 

Yes, that's right. I'm a troll with over 367 accounts and not one of them legitimate. If I were you I'd report me to the manager, have him/her check me out and toss me off the forum. It's the old "I ain't got a thing to contribute to the discussion but I want to win so I think I'll call him a troll or a liar". So what are you waiting for ... report me.

 

No, they built an aircraft carrier and called it "cruiser" to get around political restrictions. Same as with the Japanese building "helicopter destroyers" and the British building "Through-Deck Cruisers". All three are different types of aircraft carriers euphemistically renamed to get around restrictions.

Your own link that you love to reference to calls the Kuznetsov an aircraft carrier multiple times.

 

And the article you link to correctly identifies it as an aircraft carrier multiple times. Would you like me to quote each of the sentences where it does so?

 

Alaska has never declared independence from the United States and then maintained that independence for decades.