BBC report

Looks like crafty Mr Putin timed a attack even when he himself is at the Olympics opening event. Reports are coming in fast and that 4 Russian planes have been shot down by Georgians. I wonder if the down planes' pilots eject successfully.

don't know if what im abt to type out relates to what's happening there though...

Juz got back from lunch and i'm seeing B-52s landing and taking off in unusually large numbers in the 20s for the past 2 hours.

McConnell AFB's a KC-135 base and usually only see Kc-135s , USAF 737s, E-3 Sentries landing n taking off... Rarely do i even see one B-52.

I see from the new report on cable TV that Russian plane like SU-25 (frogfoot) are use to do close air support, firing rockets and flares. I think they are the most venerable planes and likely candidate of being the 4 planes that were shot down.

For the record, the Georgians launched the offensive first 2 days ago as they had ran out of options.

But it gave the Russians perfect excuse to intervene.

The current US administration is already counting down the for the Presidential elections and may not want to be drag into territorial issues of its allies.

While US have good relationships with Georgia, the yanks will probably take the diplomatic efforts rather a military response to engage the Russians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia-United_States_relations

Besides, the other players NKoreans, Iranian & the "others" (including allies) will be watching this closely.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7550780.stm

Best option : Georgia stand ground and ask for UN intervention; UN to activate paecekeepng troops to secure that province.

However, looking at the current military response, the Russian can overrun Georgia anytime to drive home their message.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/0...etia/index.html

To be honest , it is a perfect time for the US to get concessions frm the Russians on Iran.

And yea from what i gathered the Georgians attacked 1st in what the described as a "well planned offensive"

Where's your information coming from?

Its hard to believe much of the media reports coming from Russian sources especially within the first few days of conflict.

I understand the Georgians did launch an offensive, but it seemed more like a provoked escalation response rather than a "first-strike." Fighting was already sporadic since 1st August.

The US will be keen on this as well, as they have a token force in Georgia. No, I'm not talking about Ghost Recon...

AFP

Rather than getting concessions from the Russians on Iran, the US would find themselves with one hand tied behind with the Russians being able to support Iran at will.

Expect oil prices to go up again... Though its interesting to note that the timing of this conflict coincidentally coincides a period of reprieve from high oil prices.

Not really. The escalation had been on going both directly and indirectly by Russia. Other than the covert support given to the separatists, the Russian Duma started to issue Russian passports to the separatists as well as putting thru legislature to formally recognize them.

This effectively forced the hands of Georgians; de-facto independence was well on the way and from all indications, it was a well planned combined arms assault to take over the rebel capital; which would have nipped it in the bud.

It's geopolitical hardball now, all the way. Georgia is effectively calling Russia's bluff.

The problem I see is both parties have pushed themselves into a corner which they can't step out off. Both Medvedev and Saakashvili are under strong internal political pressure not to cave in.

IMO, the military conflict will turn on 2 events

1. How fast Georgia brings back the troops from Iraq

2. Possible 2nd front at Abkhazia (the other breakaway region)

Below is a map from wikipedia, not sure how accurate it is, but it gives a rough look. Looks like Russia has only 1 MSR...

I not too sure how updated the map in wiki but it looks like all out war between Russia and Georgia official. Both side taken a beating and I wonder will it affect oil price when market open on Monday?

Escalating further, second front opening up in Abkhazia.


Abkhazia moves to flush out Georgian troops

1 hour ago

SUKHUMI, Georgia (AP) — Separatist forces in Georgia's breakaway province of Abkhazia launched air and artillery strikes to drive Georgian troops from their bridgehead in the region, officials said.

The Abkhazian move was prompted by Georgia's military action to regain control over another breakaway province, South Ossetia, which began Friday, said Sergei Shamba, foreign minister in Abkhazia's separatist government.

He said that Abkhazia had to act because it has a friendship treaty with South Ossetia.

Both regions have run their own affairs without international recognition since splitting from Georgia in the early 1990s and have built up ties with Moscow. Russia has granted its passports to most of their residents.

Shamba said Abkhazian forces intended to push Georgian forces out of the Kodori Gorge. The northern part of the gorge is the only area of Abkhazia that has remained under Georgian government control.

Georgia's Security Council secretary Alexander Lomaia said that Georgian administrative buildings in the Kodori Gorge were bombed, but he blamed the attack on Russia.

In 2006, Georgian forces moved into the upper part of the Kodori Gorge to root out members of a defiant militia. Georgia later established a local administration made up of people who fled the fighting in Abkhazia.

Abkhazian and Russian officials have said they believe Georgia intends to launch an offensive from there to retake Abkhazia and demanded the withdrawal of Georgian troops from the area.

Shamba said the Abkhazian forces had to act because diplomatic efforts to settle the dispute over Georgia's presence in the gorge had failed. "Georgian forces in the Kodori Gorge posed a real threat," Shamba said.

Great insight Lionflyer, thanks for the update.

Analysis indicates this won't become a full-scale war, but end in a few days with a cease-fire. Who will engage involved parties is still a question. Come on UN !

Why not a full scale war ?
A full war would be detrimental to Putin's interests.
He wants the Georgian government weakened, and eventually replaced by an at the very least neutral government.

This isn't about South Ossetia, Abchasia or oil.
It's about the definition of the zone of influence of NATO/USA and Russia.
Ukraine and Georgia are the two prizes that are left in this East-West struggle, and Russia needs to destabilize their governments to pull them out of the Western influence zone into theirs.
Most importantly, it needs to prevent that they become NATO members. Warfare almost guarantees that they won't become members for a while.

The Georgian government has probably done a lethal mistake already with the apparently excessive violence against civilians.
The Russians can use this "multiple rocket launchers shot into villages/city full of civilians" thing to portrait the Georgian government as bad guys.
That would have two phenomenal advantages for Putin; disrupting the Georgian government for a higher chance of a new government and keeping Western support small.
No one support civilians-massacring baddies, after all.

Putin has already won. His troops only need to capture a few more square kilometres in South Ossetia to keep the status quo ante (plus quasi-permanent presence of Russian troops in South Ossetia).
He would be stupid if he allowed an escalation or long duration of the war.

Well Shotgun , you have the answer to where the info was coming from...hah i mainly got it from bbc and cnn.
Both states that yesterday/today's assualt was started by gerogia.
I am surprised though that the Goergians formally declared a state of war againest Russia. This is effectively inviting the Russians to take offensives rather then just stay on the defence.

Why would the US have 1 hand tied behind their backs though?
All i'm seeing from them is "strong protests"

And thats as far as they will go for Georgia. They are definitely not gonna respond militarily unless they want Iran to be flooded by more Russian weapons and other nasty surprises like S-300s.

It looks like a hand tied to me due to the Iran situation. Russia can pretty much grab the Americans by their ding dongs in the middle east, if the Americans or NATO decide to adopt any kind of military intervention. Georgia is afterall, Russia's backyard.

Additionally, Chavez would probably be glad to start a lil party back in Latin America with Columbia as well. At the same time, Russia's still trying to court Cuba to allow them to base their nuclear capable strategic bombers... in American backyard.

The Americans would do well to inform the Georgians to avoid further adventures north.

Well looks like the Gerogians realised they've over shot their hand, latest on BBC says that they claimed to have pulled out

they have pulled out of south ossetia but not before they pulled EU and NATO into its lonely conflict with russia.

no idea if this is right but it seems kinda reminiscent of kosovo, ethnic conflict at heart or geopolitik at play ?

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/art...s/20080810.aspx

Now to see if the Russians will continue to fuel S. Ossetian and Abkhazian seperatists, or under some looney excuse, try to annex Georgia for a "regime" change.

an interactive map of the UN mission in Abkhazia, the other breakaway region of Georgia
http://www.unomig.org/map_new.swf

Georgia to withdraw all of its troops from Iraq
1 day ago

KUT, Iraq (AFP) — Georgia will withdraw its entire 2,000-strong military contingent from Iraq within three days to help battle South Ossetian separatist rebels, a senior Georgian military official said on Saturday.

"We were ready to leave today, we are ready to leave immediately but we are waiting for the green light from Tbilisi," said Emzar Svanidze, a major with the Georgian military operation in Kut, where 1,700 troops are based.

"For the moment they are asking us to wait," he told AFP, adding that 300 soldiers based in Baghdad as well as those in "another location" had yet to arrive in Kut.

Colonel Bondo Maisuradze, chief of Georgia's military operations in the Iraqi capital, said: "We are discussing with the Americans the conditions of our departure which may take place tomorrow or the day after tomorrow."

The US military has agreed to help with the logistics of the Georgian redeployment, Maisuradze added.

The move came as Georgian and Russian forces were locked in combat on Saturday over the breakaway Georgian province of South Ossetia and President Mikheil Saakashvili of the small Caucasus nation declared a "state of war."

The departure of the brigade from Georgia -- the third largest contributor to coalition forces in Iraq after the United States and Britain -- will mean some slight changes, the US military said.

"We'll face structural changes, so we'll have to make changes. Fortunately, they are in a stable area of Iraq," military spokesman Major John Hall said.

The majority of Georgian soldiers are deployed near Kut, 175 kilometres (109 miles) south of Baghdad in the province of Wasit, a hotbed of smuggling near the Iranian border.

"They are setting up checkpoints with the border with Iran, and controlling entry and exit," said Siraj al-Samach, a member of Wasit provincial council.

"Their departure will not cause a vacuum or have any effect, because Wasit province is stable and Iraqi forces were about to take over security of the province," he added.

US forces have so far transferred control of security in 10 of 18 provinces to the Iraqi army.

The Georgians have also been involved in operations northeast of Baghdad in Diyala province, an Al-Qaeda stronghold that has seen repeated Iraqi and US assaults.

The Georgian soldiers also have a small presence in the Green Zone, the heavily fortified sector of Baghdad that houses the US embassy and Iraqi government institutions.

A staunch US ally that seeks NATO membership, Georgia last year more than doubled the number of its soldiers serving with the American-led mission in Iraq, scoring plaudits from US officials just when other countries in the coalition were reducing their presence.

But their force was to have been reduced to 300 by the end of summer anyway and eventually withdrawn entirely by the end of 2008, leaving troops from 20 countries serving in the coalition alongside US forces.

Since Georgia's deployment to Iraq in August 2003, about 4,000 of their soldiers have passed through Iraq.

They have suffered five deaths, according to an independent count by the website icasualties.org. Three of the five were killed this year in combat-related incident

The Russia 'ends Georgia operations'

BBC new report

Looks like Russian cannot take too much of "heavy" lost these days........ <_< I wonder how Mr Putin the man is feeling now.

The whole issue of this conflict is more than it meets the eyes...

so in summary, the russian forces served to

- reassert RUSSIAN influence in the caucaus and other former soviet union states
- undermine the credibility of the NATO/AMERICAN security umbrella
- take advantage of american preoccupation with middle east to remind and reestablish its military might

this is pretty disturbing. with americans preoccupied with iraq/isarel and iran/afghanistan and american academic/public/media interest focused on the "rise of china" as a military power. has this neglected the resurgence of russia ? And the presence of large american bases and FOB in iraq suggest that a full american withdrawal may not be on the cards anytime soon.

would this lead to a gradual reduction if not slow demise of american strategic and military pre-eminence ? the end of PAX Americana ?

american fleet reduction to 313 ship fleet and the russian navy planning to build 2 new aircraft careers by 2015, rise of the PRC blue water navy and naval aviation force projection with aggressive assets such as the hainan base. NATO Reduction in force as seen in germany's armed forces reduction and realignment, britain MoD's cost cutting measures in the reduction of purchases of type 45 frigates and typhoons. Cost ovveruns in america's next generation of fighter aircraft , LCS and the scrapping of the DD(X) zumwalt class project with a compromise in the sense of more DDG 51s and scaling back of the Virginia class attack subs. Would America and Pro American allies be able to project and sustain their current level of military superiority and capability above their likely challengers ?

would this lead to a power / military tripod arrangement ? the US, NATO and her allies, China and Russia. by far the tripod power arrangement is the most unstable structure of its kind. where would ASIA/ASEAN , japan , india , SK and australia fit into this new strategic balance of power ?

It can be... the strategic shift in geopolitical balance may eventually shaped into the following security cooperation bloc:

(1) US and NATO with Japan, South Korea and Australia
(2) China
(3) Russia
(4) India

Small countries like Israel, Singapore may aligned her security interest to US with counter-balance policies formulated to engage the major and/or emerging power.

Other countries... mmm... larang? Depending on where the wind blows... :ph43r:

A modern Romance of the 4 Powers? :blink:

Seriously, US is too stretch with their resources. Militarily or otherwise. They poke their nose anywhere and everywhere and when they eventually leave the place they had meddled with they left it with unresolved issues! Like the colonial powers in the 18th and 19th century.

I'm concerned now as Singapore seems to depend on the US for security needs. Look at the issues now facing US with the Georgia conflicts. In the event that US is weakened and they decided to withdraw from the region, who will be filling in the vacuum? Will we be left to jiak chao?

thats why the new DCA with australia is pretty damned important when it comes into play.

an asian equivalent of nato might be possible in the very long run. imagine all the american aligned nations e.g japan, australia and singapore and maybe thailand ? India would be a strong candidate too but i am not sure if the current government and its pro american policies will last. but i doubt it would emerge from within the framework of ASEAN.

if the maritime exercises with the US, india, SG and australia and japan are the shape of anything to come, pretty positive.

too many fault lines, too much bureaucracy within asean to ever achieve anything of significance and impact.

on the same trajectory, if the US ever decides to withdraw from asia, it would lead to utter chaos. the U.S nuclear and military deterrent would be gone and japan and south korea would probably go nuclear and in japan's case, probably remilitarize. and with no power to oppose china's growing blue water navy, who's to say whether the chinese will or will not act in a malevolent manner and grab the spratlys and secure the malacca straits to keep the oil and trade flowing ?

Kevin Rudd elaborated again on the idea of an Asia Pacific Community when he came to town.

Like-minded nations who have a keen national interest in free passage in international waters, and the status quo in relation to the Spratlys and the China-Taiwan question may eventually collaborate.

If you read headlines over today and yesterday, it's noteworthy to see that we have signed new defence MOUs with India and Australia.

The issue of Pax Americana and any eventual decline may affect Singapore's posture.

I often wonder if the future will point towards a greater shift of responsibility for security in the region to a loose collection of Australia India, and ASEAN dominated by ASEAN kecil; these states being US-aligned but increasingly capable of performing influential roles within their key spheres of influence should there be a weakening in American power in this region.

The Georgian conflict has undoubtedly hurt America a fair bit, and it also shows the overextension of the use of proxy alliances. I sincerely hope that the pro-US states in this region are able to operate fairly independent of American "protection" should the day come.

Still, there is an ongoing effort to ensure US is involved here, and that's where Rudd's APC comes into play. Personally, I feel it would be a structured, institutionalised version of the ASEAN Regional Forum, with greater participation by US, China, Japan than it is today.

One fear is that if we leave China alone, and not in a comprehensive A/P security structure, she will not feel the costs of a unilateral adventure by some elements down the line. It would be quite unwise to not treat Chinese power with some form of concern, and accept prima facie, its supposed benign nature. One only needs to look back in history to look at the Chinese influence this side of the South China Sea.

Remember Rudy Giuliani's speech about an Asian NATO? Stranger things have happened in the world and he might be right a few decades down the line.. I would not rule it out completely as well.

To be able to "operate fairly independent of American "protection"" may mean that countries like SG may have to increase her military spending drastically. In turn, it may spur an armed race which may destabilised the immediate region.

It is militarily stretched - now. Iraq is slowly being resolved, and once that's done, it can focus more on Afghanistan. If Iraq is stabilised and it turns out to be a reliable US ally, then it can be strengthened and work as a bulwark against Iran.
So what we're seeing is a window of vulnerability that Russia took advantage of. I don't know how this will turn out for the rest of the ex-Sov Union states. Will Georgia's case cause them to rush further towards the shelter of NATO, or will it cause them to turn back towards their former master? Incidentally, had Georgia been accepted into NATO before Aug 8, would Russia have dared come to S.O.'s aid?

I don't see the security of our sea lanes as being unduly affected in the forseeable future. America has a blue water fleet with the accompanying might that allows it to be pretty much anywhere it wants to be, so unless their fleet atrophies to such an extent where it turns into a green water fleet, talk of 'withdrawing from Asia' doesn't really apply. A 313 fleet US Navy is still a navy that no other on Earth can take on and expect to win. In fact, if one observes the redeployment of US forces, the US is actually strengthening it's forces in Asia by reinforcing Guam. The only matter is whether the US finds it's interests threatened enough to intervene or not.

But should for some reason America really decline that badly and the USN turns into a green water fleet through large scale decommissionings, then there really would be no one left to fill its shoes should a significantly stronger (another hypothetical) China ever decide to do some biting. Even if there was a hypothetical Singapore-India-Australia-Japan-Thailand alliance, no member would be capable of coming to each other's aid even if they wanted to.

According to plans, Russia intends to build one after 2015, so that'll give them only 1 in the near to mid term. The 'rise of the PLAN blue water navy's' will have to continue for quite a bit longer if intends to qualify as a blue water navy. Overseas bases, a comprehensive global satellite comms network, the requisite training and resupply vessels will all be needed in addition to a carrier and other surface assets.

Fantasy never to be a reality in our lifetimes nor that of our children's. NATO-like alliances require (at least) a distinct common threat, mutual trust among the members, (trust deep enough to have their militaries integrated under a formal combined command structure. Or it'll be worthless, they can come to each other's aid but they won't be able to operate together, only try to keep out of each other's way) and perhaps even an informal leader the same way the US was in NATO. Now, with the major countries in Asia look at each other with slanted eyes, how will Asia ever form a NATO-like alliance?

It would only mean that we, and many others, would have to accept a permanent loss of security, since we'd simply not be able to afford the level of protection we currently enjoy courtesy of the US.

That's where regional confidence needs to be built up between now and year X. A stronger ASEAN is the only way forward now, the only possible Plan B.

Our neighbours are not dumb, and I hardly see them being more cheery of another power muscling in than the Americans.

i dont think stretched is a word that quite fits it. personally i think america's military supremacy, like it or not, is slowly being chipped away in terms of numbers and potentially hostile adversaries who have the will and means to spend to catch up on it.

a 313 ship fleet is by far the largest surface fleet of combatants that no one will quite be able to match. but when a significant proportion of the fleet is made up of spruance class frigates, and DDG 51 burkes based on the spruance hull with a fleet modernisation plan consisting of a future LCS which has had significant cost ovveruns. lack of a political will to fund the development of a new class of destroyers (DDGX or zumwalt being scrapped because of a preference of DDG 51s for the BMD capabilities). throw in a sub fleet which is ageing and not being replaced in adequate numbers that it should have been smells like a recipe for disaster. Old hulls being pushed to the platform limits, lack of or no initiative to maintain technological supremacy over a potential adversary who churns out new ships and new subs by the dozen each year. when will the qualitative edge and numbers overturn the U.S navy's technological and operational superiority ?

I am not suggesting that the 313 ship fleet will ever become a Green water navy. but think of it this way. in a long term war / global conflict scenario, each and everyone of the 313 ship fleet is of greater importance. In a heightened security level / condition would there be enough ships to be deployed in the pacific, atlantic and middle east and asia at the same time ? should any one fleet suffer losses in theater where will the replacements be found ? and given that the US navy has just established a 4th fleet command (with no ships yet assigned) for the carribean/latin america. wont the existing assets be placed under further operational strains and commitment ? the US navy has simply too many commitments and interests across the globe

every single carrier would be exceedingly precious. should any carrier or LHD be lost in combat you would have a very potent mix of escort vessels (LCS) and very old frigates (e.g spruance, who can only fire SM-1 block missiles) or possibly outclassed and outdated DDG51s. a frigate navy against the dominant "home" carrier force with easy access to repairs and reinforcement ? not to mention cover from aircraft operating within certain bases.

outclassed and outgunned and outnumbered. a nightmarish scenario should there be no successful future ships planned and deployed (successfully without cost ovveruns) for the US navy after the zumwalt class debacle.

Hey, when the need occurs, you never know who might be the strange bedfellow you might end up with.

personally the way i see the DCA with Australia and India and Rudd's initiative is part of grand scheme of tacitly laying the groundwork for the possibility of like what is an asian collection of "aligned" nations and testing china's reaction to a possible "encirclement". after all as laserlordz put it "US-aligned but increasingly capable of performing influential roles within their key spheres of influence". in this context, dosent the DCA seem like one rung below a binding treaty that requires the nations involved to commit military muscle to another in the event of hostilities and the formal existence of a unified command structure ? the spate of military exercises that singapore and india have been having in recent years seems to underline this. a possible "strategic military partnership" without the commitment to go along ? or is it an alliance all but in name in order not to officially confront china with "encirclement" and fear a possible chinese diplomatic reprisal ?

notice the timing of the announcement. the fact that it came during olympics and where china's attention is more or less focused inwards and that Rudd's foreign policy background and his publicly known favor for china affairs.

arent we living that already ? the submarine race, helicopter race, heavy armour race and the frigate race ? NGF race ?

to put it all in perspective, i remembered deftech or some magazine quoting BaE systems vice president saying something like " south east asia is one of our most promising growth markets. it is the highest growing market in recent years and looks set to stay that way"

The South China Sea and the waterways through the archipelago is very hazardous even to a carrier battle group with its mass of protection. especially when littoral states are acquiring ultra quiet diesel submarines with AIP operating in noisy shallow waters.

should Singapore or Malaysia get into a pissing match with Uncle Sam they could easily make life very difficult for the fleet (assuming Malaysian Scorpenes will have AIP).

How did the debate turn into one about ASEAN Kecil vs Uncle Sam? :blink: :lol:

So far, we're still doing things that are in line with our national interest. It is unlikely that the regional actors here will stand idly by and accept a major power here that is not in line with the region's best interest, i.e peace before ideological claims.

The Spruance class are destroyers, and have been fully retired some time back. The CG-47 class cruisers are what's built on the Spruance class hull, and there are 22 of the Ticonderoga class remaining, each of which are the most capable AAW platforms around. Then there are 53 DDG-51s in commission, each of which are the finest all round destroyers one can find anywhere. That's a total of 75 AEGIS equipped ships, and a further 21 OHP FFGs. As a very rough measure of numbers, the next country with the most vessels of that caliber would be Japan, with just 6 AEGIS destroyers. China doesn't even have any ship in commission that matches any of the AEGIS ships in terms of full spectrum capabilities.

Submarines? Currently there are 52 subs in commission, and the future plan is 50 subs I think. With build rates increasing to 2 SSN-774 class per year, I think there's a good chance the sub fleet size can be maintained. Considering that the 688 class are continuously being upgraded, and more importantly, their submariners are well trained and have excellent exposure and training opportunities with SSK equipped navies, I don't think they're incapable of handling the threat.

Every LHD or CVN is precious and has always been so. Nothing special there. SM-1s have been phased out, no OHPs can fire them anymore. They've been neutered, though they have significantt upgrades in soft kill defenses and with Block 1B Phalanx. DDG-51 is about the most advanced DDG out there, and will remain so with the upgrades planned.

Nobody's gonna outclass them anytime soon. With at least 96 VLS cells/DDG and 128cells/CG, nobody can outgun them. Outnumber? Crappy ships won't matter much so long as they can be found. The LCS is there to take care of them.

i surrender :D hope no offence taken from me brashness. learned alot today.

me knowedge of US fleet is really basic at best.

but dont the spruance , Ticonderoga and the aegis burke class share same hull ? i know the spruance and ticonderoga definitely do. read that the burke class share the same hull but displaces alot more than before. would it be fair to apply the same analogy that hulls are platforms that when aged , need to be replaced ? kinda in the same way the F16 as a aerial platform is being phased out and replaced by the F35 ?

read on a forum somewhere that the LCS and its modular design system was designed was designed to mimick the same way the spruance and tico share hull designs in principle to cut cost.

spruance hull design goes really way back as its the first proper US warship to be designed post wwII. hence i extrapolated and figured early burkes and ticos would be considered nearing obsolesce in relation to platform age


hmm, i disagree with the sub ones though. the dramatic scaling back of the seawolf class original orders and the virginia class being the mainstay of the USN sub force. the 688s might be slowly phased out and the virginia and seawolf brought online slowly but this dosent change the fact that the seawolf class is doing some of the jobs that the sturgeon class subs were doing. although the boats may be more capable and efficient , the burden on each sub has been increased hasnt it ? Akula class has been reportedly said to be as quiet as an early 688 and with many of the new Kilos the russia and china have been happily snapped up by many navies. the newer chinese SSN and SSBNs are an unknown quality with little public domain info. in all sense of the word , being a american submariner has become alot more "dangerous" ? competition and increased strategic role. no direct replacement for ohio class after ICBM disarmament ?

dont mind if i ask some other stuff to fill the gaps in my knowledge ?

what are the OHP FFGs ?
whats the big fuss about the DDG(X) other than the railgun and the fact that the USN is getting more older DDG51s than actually pushing for it to go through ? can elaborate more for the DDG51s ?

Correct. But the Burke hull is not based on the Spruance hull. As an exercise, try taking a look at the hull from the air thru Google Earth. Very different.

There're many post war ship designs.

The new 093 is a souped up 091 Han class. Apparently that surprised naval analysts, as they were expecting a design based on the Akula. So what they're suspecting is a 095 to be ready soon. The problem remains, China (and other countries that may pose a problem to America) has how many nuclear subs? The rest are SSKs, and their attendant limitations are known.

Don't lazy. :lol: These things can find out easily online. Go globalsecurity.com to find out more.

I question whether the former Soviet satellite states would be intimidated into seeking realignment with Russia, or be intimidated to seek entry into NATO, a military alliance that would guarantee them military assistance should they be attacked. I find the latest developments where the Russians entered Gori to be a sign that the Russian THREAT is becoming very credible.

As today's Straits Times author mentioned, the European countries need Russia as much as Russia needs them. Though the European countries are highly dependent on Russia for oil and gas, Russia is also may not be able to divert the supply in time to starve them of much needed energy. Even if they do, what is Russia going to do with the Oil and Gas thats not sold to Europe? They can't magically hocus pocus it to China or anywhere else.

Perhaps I may be premature to speculate this, but I suspect that this move was intended to seal any Georgian ambition to join NATO, and perhaps split NATO's solidarity. So far, Germany has reversed its position and is now saying that Georgia should pursue its bid to join NATO. I'm not too sure if France would be too agreeable, but whether this entire incident throws NATO's solidarity into question remains to be seen.

and the conspiracy vultures gather

http://tribes.tribe.net/newawakening/threa...83-48ce2793d9b7

The Ossetians are treading on thin ice..