U.S can attack Russia in 2012 to 2015

You don't have to be planning an attack to be prepared for a response, which is what those troops stationed at the border were to do.

If there were troops stationed at the border ready for a conflict the Georgian forces would never have made it to the South Ossetian capital.
The only troops on Russian borders are border patrol... FSB and MVD troops... not 58th Army units, which was the force that was mobilised by the Georgian attack that went into South Ossetia and Abkhazia and later into Georgian territory.
The 58th Army group is made up of soldiers from the region... ie North Ossetia and the Caucus region and they had been demobilised 8 days before the attack.

You can't upgrade that plane to fly at speeds fast enough to escape a Buk, thus, UAVs are the simpler, cheaper, and more effective solution.

A properly upgraded Tu-22MR would have detected the presence of a modern air defence network and could have used its missiles to destroy any radars that were operating. Without external radars operating the BUK would have had to have turned on its own radars and revealed itself, or operated in optical mode only.

The Tu-22MR can operate above the 15,000m ceiling of the low to medium altitude BUK system.

UAV would just be shot down and return nice footage of missiles closing in and then killing them... not really much use at all.

Well, when they do get shot down, which is what usually happens, you send in low-flying helicopters or attack-aircraft like Su-25s. Of course, they get shot down too, so why not send in Tu-160s to carry masses of Kh-31Ps? What happens if that gets shot down? Well, send in an Army brigade to knock out the defenses, without air cover of course.

No you do what they eventually did and find an Mi-9 tactical jammer and send it in with the low flying aircraft and send in an up to date Tu-22MR. Any radar that turns on is destroyed with anti radiation missiles launched from the Tu-22MR while the Mi-9 jams everything except the IR guided weapons.

Bottom line is that a UAV is expendable while a Tu-22 w/ Pilots is not.

Not many UAVs able to perform SEAD. Makes mores sense to use a combination of SEAD aircraft and UAV. Ideally an Su-34 should have been used... and according to rumour was used to jam the air defence while it was dealt with.

The thing is that I care about Russian's lives and if you did too you'd agree that if Russia had UAVs those damn Tu-22 pilots wouldn't have been killed forcing another family at home to bitch and moan. Maybe if you were just more passionate about the Russian Military you'd see where I'm coming from.

Your feelings for Russian personnel extends to you caring about their family bitching and moaning?... then I can see why you think they need UAVs.
The reality is that war is war and when you are surprised you use what is on site at the time.

But it does make your pilots safer, you don't want to make Russia become a Germany, have all your good pilots get shot down in the first few and then have your noobs fly your Sukhois and make them look like flying bags of crap.

UAVs make your pilots totally safe, but UAVs flown without proper situational awareness are targets.

So I wouldn't know why you're saying that the U.S. designed GPS, because we really just invented it but our GPS is called NAVSTAR (which has a full constellation unlike GLONASS.)

Hahahahahaha... yeah, navstar was not the first sat nav system by a very long shot.

Because with a less maneuverable platform you can't adjust your platform accordingly to where the GPS says the target is.

As I said its manoeuvrability will determine its release parameters, so if it comes off the pylon it should hit the target.

For example, Russia has been doing as much as it can to protect it's Energy monopoly on Europe.

Like what?

Not to mention that Defense wise, Russia is expanding their borders by continually establishing a presence in all theaters of the world (something Superpowers are akin to.)

Very true... if you change the word Russia for NATO.

Precisely, Russia has our balls in their hands but once we switch to Clean energy, Russia knows they're going back to where they were in the 1700's, that backwards country to the East.

First of all that is rubbish. Russia is not putting any pressure on Europe over energy... in fact they are spending billions and jumping through hoops to provide alternative routes for the gas.
At the end of the day Europe can choose at any time not to buy Russian gas. They choose to do so because the alternatives will cost them more and they are cheap.

You're confusing market forces with Government again.

I am talking about unregulated markets where the market regulates itself. Anarchy without government control.

And you have a problem with that how? Or are you a supporter of terror?

I don't need 500 choices of soap... it is a waste of my time and their effort.

It is true that most Poor people got there by their sheer stupidity and laziness so I don't understand why we should follow a Nordic model and become neo-socialists.

Hahahaha... you are funny.

And yet a single piece of evidence. You know, if you're just going to post Conspirator propaganda then why do we have these overly long discussions in the first place?

Of course. The footage of cages in the open with people in chains and blindfolded on CNN was all made up. Hilarious. I am sure when they come for the Jews you will be able to justify it too... then the asians and the arabs and the blacks... then it will be your turn to go to the nice big brick buildings...

Of course, you have to think about economics. It is still cheaper to send in UAVs to act as recon, and then use Tu-22s as Killers in that Hunter-Killer team, instead of just using Tu-22s for both parts and having one get shot down and killing your pilots.

Economics certainly come in to it, but at the end of the day expecting to not lose personnel... even in an unprovoked attack is a little unrealistic.

At the end of the day a surprise attack is a surprise attack... I mean where were the F-22s when airliners were crashing into targets in 11/9?

It is a little silly to look back and say... well a lock on a cockpit door could have saved just under 3,000 lives that day... what a waste for the cost of a strengthened door and a lock.

Well you know airlines took that experience and now they do have strengthened doors and locks... and what do you know the Russian AF has bought Israeli UAVs and is spending more money on getting more.

Which is where those MANPADs came in, friendly or not, and whacked a few Su-25s.

Indeed they did... and for the modest cost of a few smashed engines and an estimated 2-3 aircraft shot down they turned the tide of the conflict and sent the enemy into a massive retreat.

A UAV overhead would not have the same effect. A meeting engagement of ground forces would have resulted in more than 2-3 men missing.

That Tu-22 wasn't a SEAD aircraft it was recon, and guess what happened to it?

The Tu-22MR is Elint and the Kh-22M missiles it carries are... ARMs. It doesn't fly over territory and take pictures... it listens for radars and radio traffic and locates emitters... and when it finds SAM battery Radars or HQ or Comm centres it launches missiles at them... its problem was that the BUK system was operating radar silent and was getting data from the AD network... when the Backfire was in range they turned on and launched and shot it down.

The problem was not sending the Tu-22MR, the problem was that they sent it alone without jammer support.

When targetted and fired upon the BUK battery was probably too close to launch a Kh-22M at it.

Remember that unlike the previous KUB battery the BUK has target tracking radars on every launch vehicle... so taking out the search radar would not take out the battery.

Of course, because Russia didn't have a mass of UAVs, those pilots died.

How many pilots died? AFAIK three of the four crew on the Tu-22MR were captured and returned after the conflict.

Those who send in UAVs alone are targets.

So UAVs need to be sent in with manned aircraft?
Doesn't that negate the point of UAVs?

It was the first full constellation, which is really the only useful configuration for Navigational satellites. Until Russia gets a full constellation, GLONASS is still Economy class while NAVSTAR is first class.

Actually there is another global positioning system that has been used for thousands of years... the elements of which are almost 14 billion years old...
And the tests with Brahmos showed that GLONASS is currently good enough.

In actual fact freely available Navstar GPS can actually be made more accurate with the combination of GLONASS and Navstar receiver chips and a bit of maths.

Unless it's guidance system isn't at it's tip-top, which is where GLONASS isn't.

Navstar signals are no where near as accurate for civilian use as for military use so Navstar has the same problems.

Either way there are no munitions with CEP of 1mm but then there are no munitions that require that level of accuracy.

SO.

?
You mean South Ossetia?
There is no oil in SO. There are no Georgian pipelines anywhere near SO. Even if you add SO and Abkhazia you still couldn't put a pipeline between the Caspian sea and the Black Sea... and even if you could why bother? Russia already has easy access to the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea.

And still quite true for Russia too. It's kinda obvious that anyone of European descent has Imperialistic ambitions, including Russians.

NATO works in the sentence because in the last 20 Years it has pretty much expanded to now include pretty much all the Warsaw Pact countries, and also a few former Soviet republics.

How exactly does Russia fit into that sentence?

Of course Europe will buy from Russia, it goes through pipes, whilst other sources are farther away and thus transportation costs.

That is not a Russian monopoly, that is Europe being too cheap to spend more on energy.

Second of all, that is not garbage. Russia knows full well that when the customer who buys most of your dark stuff is a valuable asset, something Russia depends on.

So Russia depends on Europe buying Russian gas. How does that give imperial Russia power over Europe?

Sounds like the opposite of what you are suggesting because in most conferences since the Ukraine interfered with European gas supplies the Europeans have been discussing ways of developing alternative energy supplies... it is clearly Europe that is using energy as a weapon.

Anarchy with Government is chaos.

Effective real Government is order and law, so applying real government to Anarchy leads not to Chaos but to order.

Somalia is a case in point. Ineffectual government = anarchy.
Afghanistan. Ineffectual government = country ruled by warlords = anarchy.

Precisely, you need only 1 choice of soap, Economic Darwinism here.

No, you need 2 otherwise it is not a choice.

Thanks for supporting my point.

Economics are not linked to intelligence.
Bill Gates is a very wealthy man, but he is no Einstein. He simply made a few business choices that earned him a very large amount of money. He then used that money to make more.
Luck, chance, opportunity, and already having money are just as important... if not more so than intelligence in whether you are wealthy or not.
Or do you actually think life is "fair".

Reminds me of a story about a kid that wanted a new bike. He prayed and prayed and prayed for one and he didn't get one... till he realised how religion really worked.

He went out and stole the bike he wanted and then prayed for forgiveness.

It is all about choices. I don't steal... not because it is a rule or because of religion, but because of the consequences if I get caught.
Real life is all about choices and the choices you make always lead to consequences for you and those around you.
You can never make mistakes... simply by not living your life and making choices.
We never fully know what the consequences of our actions are until they happen and it all plays out.
One time you can fire a gun in your house because you didn't realise it was loaded and apart from a hole in the wall nothing else happens.
One time you can decide to turn left instead of right at an intersection and a child runs out in front of you chasing a ball and you kill them with your car.
It is nothing to do with intelligence, and there often is little or no tangible reward for doing the right thing.

And you think that 1 example is proof to all? Please leave your discriminating mind somewhere else.

It was Guantanimo Bay... a military base. The military would have had complete control of what CNN could see and film so I very much expect that the large group of men in cages were the lucky ones being treated the best... yet even this example violates the American definition of human rights.

But these guys are terrorists!

Well the guys Stalin had in the Gulags were too.

The people China puts in prison for political reason are terrorists too.

If you want to call those Chinese and soviet prisoners dissidents then those kidnapped from their native countries and illegally transported to US leased territory in Cuba are dissidents too... except those Soviet and Chinese dissidents weren't kidnapped and taken to foreign countries and tortured.

I think about this every time a US official goes to China and starts press conferences by criticising Chinas human rights record.

They don't care about the people in Guantanimo why would they care about Chinese people in Chinese prisons? ...they don't.

It is their way of saying... you are a heathen with a culture thousands and thousands of years older than ours but we hide our crimes better than you do so listen to us.

You look at Hollywoods depiction of war as being romantic and an adventure and you start to understand why some in the US love movies like Red Dawn depicting an invasion of the US.

It is a chance to escape boring ordinary lives and become heroes.

The only problem is that real war is no movie or game, and even when you win like the Communist Vietnamese, there is suffering for years to come from unexploded ordinance (UXO), not to mention the chemical and other contamination of the land and water and air.

The fact that most of your young male population has been wiped out for a few generations leaving children and old men and women to deal with the ruined infrastructure.

I am sure the most of the living and almost all the dead would have prefered it never happened.

For the Soviets WWII was devastating to their population, their economy, and country... I am sure they would happily trade with the US the invasion of their country in the 1940s.

To be honest I haven't been to the Pictures for a while now, and I am not really a movie renter either.

I see with the latest entry of Call of Duty that the Russians are invading the US again.

I thought the Battlefield 2 scenario of the US invading China was far more realistic.