The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Delmar on July 03, 2016, 09:30:28 PM
-
Sat Jul 2, 2016, 07:45 PM
uawchild (609 posts)
Just STOP the war mongering -- Russia is a very weak nation
Endless media stories about Russian aggression and Russia's sinister resurgence, many of which get linked to here on DU as "Late Breaking News", bombard us non-stop -- trying desperately, it seems, to increase military spending at best or possibly start a shooting war at worst.
It is all just INSANE. Here's a graphic of NATO versus Russia's military spending:
How on God's green earth could anyone look at these numbers and not think calls for MORE military spending is nuts?
In terms of invasions by conventional forces Russia is simply no threat at all and is totally outclassed by the US and NATO. Urging even more spending on the military by the US and NATO is wasting money that could be better used elsewhere solving a whole host of social issues.
The only arena militarily where Russia can hold its own is in nuclear weapons, and lets all hope that circumstance don't conspire that nuclear weapons ever actually get used again. Any first use of nukes by Russia outside of Russian territory itself would just be a death warrant for the entire Russian nation. They know that, and we know that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027974861
I confess. I hardly read past the title of the OP I just pasted. What's the use? We're doomed anyway. If the leftists are calling the Russians another JV team that pose no threat to us, that surely means that an attack is inevitable.
Response to uawchild (Original post)Sat Jul 2, 2016, 08:07 PM
Star Member CanonRay (7,140 posts)
4. The entire "red menace" was pretty much a fraud
Russia had trucks without wheels and most of the subs were death traps. The bulk of 5he Soviet fleet was in drydock at any given time.
And on top of that, everybody around the world loves us now that Lightworker Barry is president.
(http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/Delmar59/59142338_zpsapx0vtcl.jpg) (http://s1095.photobucket.com/user/Delmar59/media/59142338_zpsapx0vtcl.jpg.html)
-
DUmmies: Constantly rewriting history to fit their narrative.
-
There are a couple of major differences. One, the Russians don't try to compete with a worldwide navy with carrier battle groups, they have a navy that (Aside from some still-serviceable boomers) is just designed to support operations in and around Russian home waters with the occasional show-the-flag trip. Two, their strategic focus is on stuff they can drive to, plus a little bit of low-cost screwing with us with a few Bears flying out of northern bases, not maintaining and supporting a global presence able to project force anywhere in the world and fully support it. Three, the US will buy a billion dollar airplane so we won't lose an airplane in combat, while the Russians will build a bunch of 2-million dollar airplanes and be perfectly cool with losing a couple of them as long as enough of the rest of them get through, really a lot like their philosophy about Stalin tanks vs. Tigers (Notice that the guys who used the Tigers aren't around anymore). Five, there is the whole political will thing.
A dollar-for-dollar comparison is really not all that meaningful. Look at what the US spent on Viet Nam and what the North spent on it, and then think about how it came out with a lot of those same differentials in play.
-
There are a couple of major differences. One, the Russians don't try to compete with a worldwide navy with carrier battle groups, they have a navy that (Aside from some still-serviceable boomers) is just designed to support operations in and around Russian home waters with the occasional show-the-flag trip. Two, their strategic focus is on stuff they can drive to, plus a little bit of low-cost screwing with us with a few Bears flying out of northern bases, not maintaining and supporting a global presence able to project force anywhere in the world and fully support it. Three, the US will buy a billion dollar airplane so we won't lose an airplane in combat, while the Russians will build a bunch of 2-million dollar airplanes and be perfectly cool with losing a couple of them as long as enough of the rest of them get through, really a lot like their philosophy about Stalin tanks vs. Tigers (Notice that the guys who used the Tigers aren't around anymore). Five, there is the whole political will thing.
A dollar-for-dollar comparison is really not all that meaningful. Look at what the US spent on Viet Nam and what the North spent on it, and then think about how it came out with a lot of those same differentials in play.
I read a piece yesterday about the Russian Navy sending their aircraft carrier to the eastern Med this October, to support the war on ISIS. It'll be on station until January.
-
In the late 1930s and early 40s the Japanese were a "JV team". The size of their armed forces and their economy was strictly JV. (http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm) They kicked a lot of asses before finally being crushed.
Failure to respect one's enemy is childish and moronic, a good way to be nastily surprised, if not defeated.
-
In the late 1930s and early 40s the Japanese were a "JV team". The size of their armed forces and their economy was strictly JV. (http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm) They kicked a lot of asses before finally being crushed.
Failure to respect one's enemy is childish and moronic, a good way to be nastily surprised, if not defeated.
Unless you are willing to devote your country to an enemy's utter destruction, and as long as your own country has a bias against starting shit, all that enemy has to do to win is to be just strong enough to make fighting them at the place of their choosing more expensive than you want to bear...militarily, financially, or politically, any one of the three.
-
Unless you are willing to devote your country to an enemy's utter destruction, and as long as your own country has a bias against starting shit, all that enemy has to do to win is to be just strong enough to make fighting them at the place of their choosing more expensive than you want to bear...militarily, financially, or politically, any one of the three.
One word: Switzerland.
The other side of the coin, wrt Japan at the start of WW2, Japanese leaders were convinced that the US was so morally weak that we could not tolerate initial defeats. Muslim terrorists, Putin, and China perceive the US as weak ...!
-
One word: Switzerland.
The other side of the coin, wrt Japan at the start of WW2, Japanese leaders were convinced that the US was so morally weak that we could not tolerate initial defeats. Muslim terrorists, Putin, and China perceive the US as weak ...!
They are right with Obama in charge, and the leftist media formulating majority opinion.
-
One word: Switzerland.
The other side of the coin, wrt Japan at the start of WW2, Japanese leaders were convinced that the US was so morally weak that we could not tolerate initial defeats. Muslim terrorists, Putin, and China perceive the US as weak ...!
They're a lot closer to being right than Japan was. Russian can attack any non-NATO country it wants to (And I'm not so sure about how committed we are to some of the smaller NATO countries), and China anything in the Pacific besides South Korea or Japan, and we won't directly intervene militarily against either one of them. Japan made the mistake of attacking US bases and territory directly, they were getting away with murder in the China and the Pacific for about eight years up to that point without managing to do anything that actually brought the US to the point of being able to make itself fight them.