Talk:Russian Armed Forces
http://projects.sipri.se/milex/mex_rus_milex_02.pdf
for figures for expenditure
New Table of Ranks
I created a table of ranks for Comparative military ranks, but as things turned out, it wasn't needed there, so I tried moving it here. Only there already is a table here. But this table is different (and somewhat messier)) than mine. I haven't replaced the table here yet because it contains information which my table does not. I hope the two can be reconsiled soon and then moved here. I will do this if nobody else is up to the task. --Oceanhahn 09:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
budget needs adjusting
according to the economicst russia's defence budget is second largest in the world which leads me to believe that the stated figure is wrong.
numbers
Availability and Fit for Service numbers make no sense. Same critaria, different numbers Elfguy 23:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would assume that Availability is the number of men who could (theoretically) be conscripted and mobilised. While Fit for Service would mean the number of men who have completed their military service and could be mobilised without having to receive further training. --BadSeed 08:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Space Troops?
what nation would need space troops
just shoot down the satellite or space station
Dudtz
4:40 PM EST,Jul 22 05
Strategic Rocket Forces
The article claims that Russia's nuclear arsenal is second largest in the world, but a recent New York Times feature put Russia's numbers at 16,000 and had the USA coming in second with 10,000 nuclear weapons. Kazak 04:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Both nummbers are wrong, also Soviet /russian nuclear bombs are more powerfull because the earlier rockets weren't very accurate so the Soviets would just blast a bigger area and when accuracy came they didnt down grade the strength of the bomb for each missile.
Also Soviet/russian missiles are able to carry more mini missiles that seperate in flight and each of them hiting independent targets, other countries of course have similar kinds of missiles but the russians have more. And the biggest reason is that no way in hell does anybody except a very few people know how many nuclear weapons any country has, because those secrets will be secret forever. Deng 2005-11-29 23.45 CET
- You're both wrong, and the NY Times is wrong. The number of strategic nuclear warheads operational is well known and fixed by START I and the new (post-NMD) agreement. NY Times just added tactical nuclear weapons as well (on missiles, torpedoes, free-fall bombs, non-conventional artillery shells etc) and came up with these numbers that no one knows where they come from. Emigrant 123
Second largets nuclear force? I believe it has the largest but am not certain
The Soviet Unnion hade the Largest nuclear force on earth in what ever way you messure it, be it by nummber of nukes way of delivering them or blast power and size of them
But the question is has Russia scraped enough of them to have fallen to nummber 2
No one ofcurse knows for certain but it would be very nice if anyone could give an estimate based on real facts
And how do you messure what is largets is it by nummber ofnukes or how much they can blast or how likely they are to hit the target or is it a combo of diffrent figures?
Deng 2005-11-29 23.55 CET
These are figures I've seen. Russia has about 20,000 US has about 10,000 UK has about 5,000 France has about 5,000 Dudtz 2/22/06 9:13 PM EST
What about the Internal troops of the MVD?--68.85.27.47 01:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Internal Troops are under Ministry of Internal Affairs, and are not part of armed forcess (military) of Russian Federation, which are under Ministry of Defence. --DimaY2K 20:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)