Rais Vladimir Putin amesema Urusi itaanza kuunda makombora mapya!

[wa kupuliza]

Hesabu za gharama za uzalishaji wa silaha za nyuklia haziko wazi sana na mara chache sana kuwa 'published' mfano kitabu hiki Atomic Audit

Silaha hizi mara nyingi zina sehemu kuu mbili kichwa cha nyuklia (nuclear warhead) na kibeba kichwa hicho cha nyuklia (nuclear warhead launcher). Kwa Marekani idara/wizara ya nishati uhusika na utengenezaji na ukarabati wa warhead wakati wizara ya ulinzi uhusika na vibeba vichwa vya warhead. Kumbuka maelezo haya ni kwa mujibu wa
How Much Does it Cost to Create a Single Nuclear Weapon?

Kwa mujibu wa Lisbeth Gronlund mtaalamu wa usalama wa ulimwengu anasema Marekani ilikuwa inakarabati kichwa kimoja cha nuclear warhead kwa shilingi za Tanzania 4,600,000,000/- (ukibadilisha dola moja kwa shilingi 2300 za Tanzania).
Launchers(delivery systems) ni ghali zaidi ingawa loncha za ardhini ninafuu kuliko za majini. mfano loncha moja ya ardhini ambayo yaweza kubeba warhead moja ya nuclear uuzwa dola milioni 50 na ukarabati wake wafikia dola milioni 15.

Hesabu hizi za kimarekani zinaweza kuwa kubwa sana kulingana na maelezo ambayo tayari yametolewa juu ya uzalishaji bidhaa kati ya US na China ama Russia kwenye uzi huu.

Nimeyaeleza haya kuonyesha kuwa tunaweza kujipanga kama nchi nasi "tukadhalisha" bidhaa hii kwa bei ndogo kabisa (wanafizikia na wataalamu wengine wa mbambo haya nadhani tunao). Tukifanikiwa hili, itasaidia kuwfanya mabunge ya Ulaya na kwingineko kufikiria mara mbili kutoa lugha za kuudhi kwa washirika wetu achilia sisi wenyewe. TUJITEGEMEE inawezekana.

Karibu wanaJF kuliangalia hili na kulijadili kwa mtazamo elimishi.

Mtaalamu wetu wa Nuclear hapa TZ Dr.Bilal yeye aliamua kua mwanasiasa ndio uzalendo wake uliishia pale,so no 'Sweti'.


Sent from my iPhone using JamiiForums

 

[Chief]

Naomba nikubali kwamba nchi ya Marekani ndiyo nchi kubwa sana duniani na yenye uchumi mkubwa kuliko zote ukitumia kiwango cha GDP. Pia Marekani ndiyo nchi yenye bajeti kubwa ya kijeshi kuliko zote ambapo ukichukua bajeti za nchi zote duniani ukaziunganisha hawawezi kufika kwa Marekani. Lakini sasa hoja yako uliyoileta hapa inaonyesha huna ufahamu mkubwa sana na mamcho ya Uchumi, kama ungekuwa nao basi ungekuwa na mtizamo tofauti kabisa: Upande wa pili wa hoja yako ni kwamba unaangalia upande moja wa shilingi bili kujifunza kupitia historia ya mataifa makubwa yaliwahi kutokea hapa duniani kabla ya Marekani.

Kwenye GDP marekani hakamatwi lakini kwenye PPP wa kwanza ni Uchina. Katika hili tunakuja na kanuni ya kiuchumi iitwayo The BIG MAC INDEX iliyoandaliwa na jarida la The Economist. Ambapo wanasema unchukua dola ya kimarekani halafu ukaweka nchi ya Marekani na Uchina halafu unapima nguvu ya manunuzi. Leo hii ukichukua dola 10 halafu dola tano ukawa nazo kule Beijing na dola tano nyingine ukawa nazo kule Washington: Itakuwa hivi, Washington utanunua Beef Burger mbili, wakati Beijing utanunua Beef Burger tatu kwasababu maisha yako chini. Hii ndiyo PPP na mwaka 2014 IMF iliitangaza Uchina kuwa ndiyo nchi ya kwanza katika PPP hivyo basi GDP ya California kuwa kubwa kuliko Urusi isikudanganye na kusema Urusi ni nchi dhaifu. Hili linatujengea msingi mzuri katika kujibu hoja yako ifuatayo:


Ndiyo vita vinahitaji Uchumi imara, lakini Uchumi mzuri ni ule ambao unazalisha kwa bei ya chini bidhaa ambazo wenzake wanazalisha kwa gharama kubwa. Tukija kwenye PPP na GDP sasa: Marekani ana bajeti kubwa kwasababu Uchumi wake ujo juu na gharama za maisha ziko juu sana. Hivyo rasilimali ni gharama, kodi kubwa, wafanyakazi kuwalipa ni gharama sana ndiyo maana unakuta ana bajeti ya Bilioni 700. Lakini upande wa pili nchi kama Uchina na Urusi wananufaika na PPP, ambapo kama ukimpa Urusi na Marekani bilioni 10, ambapo Marekani atanunu vifaru 300 kutoka viwanda vya nchini kwake basi Urusi kwa bilioni 10 atanunua vifaru 350 vyenye kiwango kilekile nchini kwake. Unajua ni kwanini ?? Gharama za uzalishaji ni ndogo nchini Urusi.
N

Mfano mzuri: Ulikuwa ukiwapa Marekani na Uingereza kiasi sawa cha pesa, basi Marekani alikuwa ana uwezo wa kufanya nayo kazi nyingi kuliko Uingereza kwasababu ya maisha yake kuwa chini. Kwenye vita za dunia yeye ndiyo alikuwa anawauzia silaha na aliajiri wanajeshi wengi sana. Sasa ukikimbilia kuangalia GDP, Uingereza alikuwa kamwacha Marekani mbali sanaa, lakini kwa PPP Marekani alikuwa kamuacha Uingereza mbali sana. Hivyo bwana Jay One, Uchumi ni kitu kipana sana na ningezungumzia hapa mambo ya vita kuonesha udhaiufu wa hoja yako lakini sina muda kwasasa.......

Nimesoma andiko lako hapo, na pamoja na kuwa na na hoja murua, bado haijabatilisha hoja ya Jay One kuwa US wana uchumi mkubwa, na ili kuweza kuhimili vita unahitaji kuwa na uchumi mkuwa, Pamoja na kuleta hoja ya PPP, assumption kubwa sana ambayo ipo kwenye hoja yako ni kuwa kama Urusi na Marekani wanapewa kiwango sawa cha fedha. Sasa badili hiyo assumption usema Marekani apewe mara 10 ya Urusi, conclusion inabadilika kabisa. Sasa, the reality is, Marekani ni far, far richer kuliko Urusi kiasi kwamba hata kama PPP inawa favor Urusi, bado Marekani atanunua/tengeneza vifaru vingi kuliko Urusi (according to your example). Kitu cha pili ambacho pia ume overlook ni technology. Hata kama Urusi ataishia kutengeneza vifaa vingi, technology advantage aliyonayo Marekani ita more that compensate numerical advantage atakayokuwa nayo Mrusi. Korea ya kaskazini ina submarines nyingi kuliko nchi yeyote duniani including Marekani, lakini zipo obsolete sana. Submarine moja tu ya Marekani yaweza kuiangamiza Korea nzima. Trump amemwambia Putin point blank kuwa ukitaka mashindano ya silaha, sawa lakini wewe ndo utashindwa. Kwa hiyo bado hoja ya Jay One ina mashiko, hata uki consider PPP.

 

[Chief]

marekani pia anayo lakini unachoshindwa kujua ni kwamba ikitokea vita makombora ya urusi yatafika marekani kwenye majimbo yake muhimu ndani ya nusu saa tu ila marekani itatumia zaidi ya masaa mawili kurusha kombora kufika majimbo muhimu ya urusi. kama unajua kusoma vizuri ramani utanielewa. hivyo marekani anajihani kwa kambi nyingi ambazo hazitaweza kufanya kazi kwa urusi

Usijidangaye. Kwa kukusaidia, ebu google Ohio Class Submarines halafu usome mavitu. Au soma link niliyotoa hapo juu.

 

[kidadari]

Haikuhitaji Uchumi mkubwa sana kwa Mujahedeen kupigana na Wasovieti. Vita imebadilika sana na nimemshangaa ambavyo anasema wewe hujui ukasome: Changamoto kubwa kwenye karne hii ni Irregular Warfare, ambapo unakuta kikundi kidogo kinapigana na nchi yenye nguvu na kinawasumbua. Israel ni mtaalamu wa Conventional Warfare lakini Hezbollah ni mtaalamu wa Assymetric Warfare, nadhani mwaka 2006-2007 tulishuhdia nini kilitokea.

Upande mwingine kuna Cyber Warfare na Terrorism kama sehemu mpya ya vita ambayo mpaka leo hii tumeshuhudia zikitumika vibaya sana kuyadhuru mataifa makubwa. Japan na jeshi lake wakati anavamia Marekani mwaka 1941 hakuua watu wengi na kusababisha madhara makubwa kama ambavyo kikundi cha Al-Qaeda kilisababisha mwaka 2001. Tena ni majamaa wadogo tu waliofanikisha ule mpango.

MI6 wanasema magaidi waliopo Ulaya siku hizi hawatumii tena mabomu ya kujilipua kama zamani: Teknolojia ya vyombo vya usalama imekuwa ni kubwa sana. Wanachofanya ni kujigawa kwenye vikundi vya watu watatu watatu na kutumia silaha kama visu, au wanabaka. Sasa watu kama hawa utajisifia Conventional Warfare kweli ???

NB: Kama ulivyosema vita vya kinyuklia havihitaji uchumi kabisa, leo hii Korea Kaskazini nchi Masikini sana inatoa matamko ambayo yanamfanya mtu mwenye GDP kubwa akose usingizi nalo hili ni dogo anadhani! Hata leo hii sisi tukiwa na Nyuklia Warheads hata mbili tu, tutaheshimika sana na watajipanga sana katika kuzungumza na sisi.

Mkuu makombora/silaha za masafa mafupi na ya kati ni hatari kuliko ya masafa marefu??
Naomba ufafanuzi kama ni kweli, kwa nini?

 

[Imeloa]

You are not getting the point: War is not casualties, war is all about achieving military objectives. And unfortunately, you happen to have not known this simple fact. A simple lesson from history: During world war two the Soviet casualties were enormous compared to all the allies united. Historians estimate that more than 26 million Russians died at the eastern front but their objectives were to gut out the Nazi War Machine, Liberate the Balkans and Land their troops in Berlin, at the heart of the Third Reich. The German casualties were abysmally low compared to those on the Soviet side: But we cannot argue that Germans won a war because they slaughtered 26 million Russians and Russians slaughtered few million. This is the lamest argument I've ever heard since the beginning of 2019.

So when you argue that the Vietnamese lost the war because 5 million Vietnamese died and only 60 thousand US soldiers died: I say you forget the realities of history. The objective of Northern Vietnam was to annex South Vietnam and kick the US out of their land. Another vivid example, General George Washington lost numerous battles against the British Empire and suffered massive casualties during the Battle of Brooklyn in 1776. But still went on to win the war and gain independence: Independence was the objective. The British Slaughtered many Americans but maintained a very low scale of casualties: In the light of your arguments Americans lost the war of Independence because most of them died. Seriously ????

And the last point is: In legal, military and political sense Cuban Invasion is regarded as a war. What you don't know is that, if a country sends a proxy or an armed band that carries a military attack to the threshold that it is equated to an attack carried by regular armed forces of the belligerent nation sending the armed band or group such attack is and will be imputed to be an armed attack by that particular nation. And this concept was recognized and accepted by the International Criminal Court (ICJ) in the most celebrated case of Nicaragua V United States of America of 1985 and by the Military Tribunals of the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the famous case of Dusko Tadic V The Prosecutor of 1997.

NB: Before calling people lunatics make sure you that you are well versed into what you want to spew before the public. And all this arrogance for what ??? A simple discussion about America and Russia ?? You got to grow up man.

CC: Wick , mnyikungu, TUJITEGEMEE , 1954, chige

Ok, I know the end justifies the means but sometimes achieving military victory with a massive human loss equates to impregnating a beautiful girl you so much coveted but ending up acquiring HIV in the process.

It's an achievement of one's personal ego in disguise which is not worth boasting.

The massive human loss the Russians sustained in the WWII prompted them to adopt the policy of developing more defensive weapons than the offensive ones because that calamity has remained indelible in their minds to date.

 

[MALCOM LUMUMBA]

Nimesoma andiko lako hapo, na pamoja na kuwa na na hoja murua, bado haijabatilisha hoja ya Jay One kuwa US wana uchumi mkubwa, na ili kuweza kuhimili vita unahitaji kuwa na uchumi mkuwa, Pamoja na kuleta hoja ya PPP, assumption kubwa sana ambayo ipo kwenye hoja yako ni kuwa kama Urusi na Marekani wanapewa kiwango sawa cha fedha. Sasa badili hiyo assumption usema Marekani apewe mara 10 ya Urusi, conclusion inabadilika kabisa. Sasa, the reality is, Marekani ni far, far richer kuliko Urusi kiasi kwamba hata kama PPP inawa favor Urusi, bado Marekani atanunua/tengeneza vifaru vingi kuliko Urusi (according to your example). Kitu cha pili ambacho pia ume overlook ni technology. Hata kama Urusi ataishia kutengeneza vifaa vingi, technology advantage aliyonayo Marekani ita more that compensate numerical advantage atakayokuwa nayo Mrusi. Korea ya kaskazini ina submarines nyingi kuliko nchi yeyote duniani including Marekani, lakini zipo obsolete sana. Submarine moja tu ya Marekani yaweza kuiangamiza Korea nzima. Trump amemwambia Putin point blank kuwa ukitaka mashindano ya silaha, sawa lakini wewe ndo utashindwa. Kwa hiyo bado hoja ya Jay One ina mashiko, hata uki consider PPP.

Hoja ya Marekani kuwa tajiri haina ubishi wowote ule, hata mimi sijaibishia kabisa. Lakini ambacho mimi nitaendelea kuwaambia siku zote ni kwamba vita huwezi kushinda kwa kuwa na uchumi mkubwa tu. Unasema nyambizi ya Marekani inaweza kuharibu Korea yote, mbona hata nyambizi za Ufaransa zinaweza kufanya hivyo ??? Marekani ana nguvu lakini hawezi kucheza na Urusi kama anavyocheza na Korea, Syria au Libya. Hana huo uwezo..

 

[MALCOM LUMUMBA]

Ok, I know the end justifies the means but sometimes achieving military victory with a massive human loss equates to impregnating a beautiful girl you so much coveted but ending up acquiring HIV in the process.

It's an achievement of one's personal ego in disguise which is not worth boasting.

The massive human loss the Russians sustained in the WWII prompted them to adopt the policy of developing more defensive weapons than the offensive ones because that calamity has remained indelible in their minds to date.

Again you disregard the realities of history: The reality is that it is the Western Alliance that adopted a defensive strategy after the second world war and not the Soviet Union: The Russians were on the offensive. Refer these examples:
-Europe formed NATO out of the fear of Soviet Military Aggrandizement.
-President Harry S Truman adopted The Containment Policy out of the fear of Soviet Communism.
-The Berlin Crisis of 1948 happened because the Soviets wanted to annex the whole of Germany.
-The Marshall Plan was adopted to rule out the European from the snares of communism.
-It was the Soviet Union that started the Korean War of 1950-53 and not the Western Alliance.
-Soviets invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.

How were they defensive my friend ????

NB: Russian Federation has adopted a defensive strategy, and the Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union.

 

[Chief]

Hoja ya Marekani kuwa tajiri haina ubishi wowote ule, hata mimi sijaibishia kabisa. Lakini ambacho mimi nitaendelea kuwaambia siku zote ni kwamba vita huwezi kushinda kwa kuwa na uchumi mkubwa tu. Unasema nyambizi ya Marekani inaweza kuharibu Korea yote, mbona hata nyambizi za Ufaransa zinaweza kufanya hivyo ??? Marekani ana nguvu lakini hawezi kucheza na Urusi kama anavyocheza na Korea, Syria au Libya. Hana huo uwezo..

Inazidi kuonyesha kuwa namba si hoja na sija-discredit nyambizi za Ufaransa. Marekani hana uwezo wa kucheza na Urusi ila ana uwezo wa kumpiga kama si kutoka sare. Ila usisahau wale Russian mercenaries wenye support ya Russia walivyopigwa na Marekani vibaya sana, na jinsi Marekani na washirka wake walivyotuma cruise missiles Syria, in total disregard ya Russia warning kuwa watatungua missiles zanyewe na kupiga kule zilikorushiwa Silaha nyingi za Urusi ni defensive in nature so the best katika vita na US, watamalizana wote, otherwise atashindwa tu. Urusi hawezi ku project power yake mbali na Urusi, ukilinganisha na Marekani.

 

[wa kupuliza]

Usijidangaye. Kwa kukusaidia, ebu google Ohio Class Submarines halafu usome mavitu. Au soma link niliyotoa hapo juu.

Na wewe google nchi yenye nuclear war heads nyingi zaidi duniani ni nani?


Sent from my iPhone using JamiiForums

 

[Kamanda wa Kweli]

Hahaha kweli? Stories za vijiweni hizi.

Russia ange-concentrate kwenye kujenga uchumi wake uliyo nyuma sio mambo ya kufanya mashindano ya utengenezaji silaha.

 

[Kamanda wa Kweli]

Ooh

Ninaweza kukupa sifa ww ili kuficha mambo yangu

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app

 

[MALCOM LUMUMBA]

Ooh

Bwana mkubwa heshima yako sana!

 

[Seawhale]

Russia ange-concentrate kwenye kujenga uchumi wake uliyo nyuma sio mambo ya kufanya mashindano ya utengenezaji silaha.

Unaamini kwamba wenyewe hawalifahamu hili!?.

 

[Frank Wanjiru]

Mkuu makombora/silaha za masafa mafupi na ya kati ni hatari kuliko ya masafa marefu??
Naomba ufafanuzi kama ni kweli, kwa nini?

Masafa mafupi inakuwa shida sana kuzotrace kwa haraka tofauti na long range ballistic missiles ambazo unaweza kuzishusha hasa kwenye hatua ya kwanza za urukaji wake.

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app

 

[CHUKILII]

Putin pasua kichwa

 

[Imeloa]

Unaamini kwamba wenyewe hawalifahamu hili!?.

Hawalifahamu, unaona kila siku akiwekewa vikwazo anabaki kulialia. Tizama ktk kipindi cha miaka minane pesa yao imeporomoka thamani kwa zaidi ya asilimia 100.

 

[Chief]

Trump ametoa tena onyo kwa China na Urusi kuwa wakianza nuclear race, US watawashinda. Anasema “Perhaps we can negotiate a different agreement, adding China and others, or perhaps we can't — in which case, we will outspend and out-innovate all others by far.” Soma hapa.
Trump warns China, Russia: US would win nuclear arms race

 

[Chief]

Hawalifahamu, unaona kila siku akiwekewa vikwazo anabaki kulialia. Tizama ktk kipindi cha miaka minane pesa yao imeporomoka thamani kwa zaidi ya asilimia 100.

Bahati mbaya, pesa haiwezi kuporomoka zaidi ya asilimia mia🙂

 

[wa kupuliza]

Trump ametoa tena onyo kwa China na Urusi kuwa wakianza nuclear race, US watawashinda. Anasema “Perhaps we can negotiate a different agreement, adding China and others, or perhaps we can't — in which case, we will outspend and out-innovate all others by far.” Soma hapa.
Trump warns China, Russia: US would win nuclear arms race

Huyo babu jinga msema hovyo ni kawaida yake kuropoka.


Sent from my iPhone using JamiiForums

 

[Imeloa]

Bahati mbaya, pesa haiwezi kuporomoka zaidi ya asilimia mia🙂

Hata hiyo hesabu rahisi inakushinda..!!