The Destroyer of All Western Values
-
- Posts: 18721
- Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:02 pm
Re: The Destroyer of All Western Values
Assuming any Russian nuclear warheads still operate. Last I read about it, they need to be serviced every 2 years, and hardly any have been. There's probably only a handful of Russian nukes that are airworthy. America's nukes OTOH, probably 75% of those could go up tomorrow.
Shamedia, Shamdemic, Shamucation, Shamlection, Shamconomy & Shamate Change
-
- Posts: 36399
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am
Re: The Destroyer of All Western Values
Fake news, the Russian deterrent is fully operational, that's where they spend most of their money, and if there's one thing the Russians have mastered, it's nuclear weapons of all sorts, tactical, operational and strategic.
Their nuclear forces are more advanced than the American nuclear forces, America hasn't put much effort into her nuclear forces for decades, the Russians on the other hand, they've doubled down.
The Russians is crazy for nuclear weapons, because in the end, it's the cheapest simplest weapon of them all.
But, if the Americans are overconfident, all the better for Mr. Ivan, as that would be just what he needed, to execute the counterforce.
Their nuclear forces are more advanced than the American nuclear forces, America hasn't put much effort into her nuclear forces for decades, the Russians on the other hand, they've doubled down.
The Russians is crazy for nuclear weapons, because in the end, it's the cheapest simplest weapon of them all.
But, if the Americans are overconfident, all the better for Mr. Ivan, as that would be just what he needed, to execute the counterforce.
Last edited by Smitty-48 on Wed May 31, 2017 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nec Aspera Terrent
-
- Posts: 7571
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:54 pm
Re: The Destroyer of All Western Values
What if the US cut NATO spending, and used the money for a redundant amount of missile defense systems? Still get the pork, but actually create something that would make America safer from a nuke strike?
Shikata ga nai
-
- Posts: 25279
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
- Location: Ohio
Re: The Destroyer of All Western Values
That's absurd. Why would we stop wasting money to play World Police? How does that bring Jesus back?heydaralon wrote:What if the US cut NATO spending, and used the money for a redundant amount of missile defense systems? Still get the pork, but actually create something that would make America safer from a nuke strike?
-
- Posts: 36399
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am
Re: The Destroyer of All Western Values
America only spends $460 million on NATO, the current unit cost on a GMD ABM system is about $40 billion, so, wouldn't even buy you one, wouldn't even buy you a nice mock up of one.heydaralon wrote:What if the US cut NATO spending, and used the money for a redundant amount of missile defense systems? Still get the pork, but actually create something that would make America safer from a nuke strike?
Last edited by Smitty-48 on Wed May 31, 2017 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nec Aspera Terrent
-
- Posts: 7571
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:54 pm
Re: The Destroyer of All Western Values
What a bummerSmitty-48 wrote:America only spends $460 million on NATO, the current unit cost on a GMD ABM is about $40 billion, so, wouldn't even buy you one, wouldn't even buy you a nice mock up of one.heydaralon wrote:What if the US cut NATO spending, and used the money for a redundant amount of missile defense systems? Still get the pork, but actually create something that would make America safer from a nuke strike?
Shikata ga nai
-
- Posts: 25279
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:50 am
- Location: Ohio
Re: The Destroyer of All Western Values
Silly, we are NATO. Our entire military is sorta dedicated to it.Smitty-48 wrote:America only spends $460 million on NATO, the current unit cost on a GMD ABM system is about $40 billion, so, wouldn't even buy you one, wouldn't even buy you a nice mock up of one.heydaralon wrote:What if the US cut NATO spending, and used the money for a redundant amount of missile defense systems? Still get the pork, but actually create something that would make America safer from a nuke strike?
We should rename it "Auxiliary American Army Alliance", as the entire purpose is to provide political cover for our foreign adventure-conflicts.
-
- Posts: 36399
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am
Re: The Destroyer of All Western Values
If you go the ABM route, the Russians will just retaliate with massive redundancy, toss the SALT treaties and go back to cranking out maximum MIRV's, and since the offensive nuclear weapons are exponentially cheaper and easier than the defensive ABM's, they win.
Bear in mind, 1750 MIRV's, that's treaty restricted, their actual capacity is probably more like 12,000 MIRVs, even right now they got an extra 6,000 hydrogen bombs just sitting around storage.
Bear in mind, 1750 MIRV's, that's treaty restricted, their actual capacity is probably more like 12,000 MIRVs, even right now they got an extra 6,000 hydrogen bombs just sitting around storage.
Nec Aspera Terrent
-
- Posts: 36399
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am
Re: The Destroyer of All Western Values
The Russians are all about the nukes, the Russian military budget is around $60 billion, and of that, they spend about $15 billion on nuclear weapons, America's military budget is around $600 billion, and America only spends about $60 billion on nuclear weapons; the Russians are not preparing for a conventional war in Europe, plain to see.
The Russians know the score; if it ever comes head to head, it just skips right by the conventional war in Europe without ever stopping there, straight to the nuclear standoff over the pole.
Even in the European theatre, it's all about the nukes, as the Russians have no hope of winning a conventional war there, their European arm of decision, is Nuclear Deescalation; pop a nuke over that shit, how you like me now? Still wanna fight? No? Didn't think so.
Can't win a conventional war against a nuclear power, as soon as they start losing, they're gonna draw down with the nukes, then what'cha gonna do? Hence; spending big money on conventional forces for NATO; big waste of money.
The only real purpose the conventional forces serve, is as a tripwire, hence; Canada sent a battlegroup to Latvia to be our component of the tripwire, and that's enough to get the job done, anything more than that, would just provoke the Russians and escalate things, which is counterproductive, thus, Canada's obligation to NATO; done and done.
In the event of war, 1st Canadian Division (Mechanized); The whole war would be over, by way of the pole, before they even left Halifax.
This is why even the US Army and Marine Corps, have only deployed one Brigade Combat Team to Poland, and one Marine Expeditionary Unit to Norway, tripwire; done and done.
Per capita, by population and GDP, Canada's commitment of actual combat troops to Europe, is roughly the same as America's. America has more support troops there, but; not actually tasked to NATO, that's EUCOM, primary mission, not Russia, GWOT. Canada's GWOT contribution is in northern Iraq; CANSOFCOM Task Force Arrowhead.
Canada also has troops in western Ukraine to train the Ukrainians and learn from them about the Russians, but also not NATO; Tripartite International Commission; only Americans, British, Canadians, no NATO.
Priority of work for Canada is; Defence of the Realm, Aid to Civil Power, Five Eyes, GWOT, CDSA, NORAD, OAS, and only then NATO, NATO is way down the list. Canada first, America second, Britain-Australia-New Zealand third, Latin America fourth, the Europeans come last.
Moreover, as the threats are primarily unconventional; terrorists, transnational criminal cartels, and espionage, we divert resources to Special Operations, Counterintelligence, Signals Intelligence, Counternarcotics, Incident Response, Disaster Assistance, Domain Awareness, Law Enforcement, etcetera, etcetera, more Commandos, Spooks, and Cops, than tanks, warships, and fighter jets.
The Russians know the score; if it ever comes head to head, it just skips right by the conventional war in Europe without ever stopping there, straight to the nuclear standoff over the pole.
Even in the European theatre, it's all about the nukes, as the Russians have no hope of winning a conventional war there, their European arm of decision, is Nuclear Deescalation; pop a nuke over that shit, how you like me now? Still wanna fight? No? Didn't think so.
Can't win a conventional war against a nuclear power, as soon as they start losing, they're gonna draw down with the nukes, then what'cha gonna do? Hence; spending big money on conventional forces for NATO; big waste of money.
The only real purpose the conventional forces serve, is as a tripwire, hence; Canada sent a battlegroup to Latvia to be our component of the tripwire, and that's enough to get the job done, anything more than that, would just provoke the Russians and escalate things, which is counterproductive, thus, Canada's obligation to NATO; done and done.
In the event of war, 1st Canadian Division (Mechanized); The whole war would be over, by way of the pole, before they even left Halifax.
This is why even the US Army and Marine Corps, have only deployed one Brigade Combat Team to Poland, and one Marine Expeditionary Unit to Norway, tripwire; done and done.
Per capita, by population and GDP, Canada's commitment of actual combat troops to Europe, is roughly the same as America's. America has more support troops there, but; not actually tasked to NATO, that's EUCOM, primary mission, not Russia, GWOT. Canada's GWOT contribution is in northern Iraq; CANSOFCOM Task Force Arrowhead.
Canada also has troops in western Ukraine to train the Ukrainians and learn from them about the Russians, but also not NATO; Tripartite International Commission; only Americans, British, Canadians, no NATO.
Priority of work for Canada is; Defence of the Realm, Aid to Civil Power, Five Eyes, GWOT, CDSA, NORAD, OAS, and only then NATO, NATO is way down the list. Canada first, America second, Britain-Australia-New Zealand third, Latin America fourth, the Europeans come last.
Moreover, as the threats are primarily unconventional; terrorists, transnational criminal cartels, and espionage, we divert resources to Special Operations, Counterintelligence, Signals Intelligence, Counternarcotics, Incident Response, Disaster Assistance, Domain Awareness, Law Enforcement, etcetera, etcetera, more Commandos, Spooks, and Cops, than tanks, warships, and fighter jets.
Nec Aspera Terrent
-
- Posts: 36399
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:22 am
Re: The Destroyer of All Western Values
Tell you right now, even if America put a gun to our heads and demanded that we spend more, we wouldn't spend that on NATO; NATO? What is this, 1983? "Hey, America, the 1980's called, and they want their foreign policy back."
If we spend more, we're spending it on Fortress North America not Fortress Europe, and we wouldn't blow the wad on an Armored Division to fight the Russians, bet dat...
... "what's a matter wit'choos?"
If we spend more, we're spending it on Fortress North America not Fortress Europe, and we wouldn't blow the wad on an Armored Division to fight the Russians, bet dat...
... "what's a matter wit'choos?"
Nec Aspera Terrent