U.S. admiral raises alarm over Russian military threat

iliveonramen · Mar 17, 2015

11Bravo said:
That's the nature of the beast. We can't be geopolitical and downsize the military. Sure we don't need to intervene in some things, but that doesn't mean we should downsize the greatest military in the world when others are boosting theirs.

If we want to be 'noninterventionalists' we need to pull out of every nation. That will never happen. So with that notion that we will not pull out of every nation, we should NEVER downsize. That's the incorrect solution. History will show. We're witnessing it.

There's space on the spectrum between constant intervention all over the world and complete isolationism.

As for downsizing, it's the same thing. There's a spectrum between a military that can fight a war on multiple fronts and a military more than large enough to defend the United states.

flogger · Mar 17, 2015

11Bravo said:
Russia's economy has certainly taken a hit. But you must be ignorant of their military spending in the last year. Let me educate you. They begun AT1 Manu's in every regiment. They've stacked each line with B9 Cali's and invested in Geospatial imagery components over future sats.

They are certainly laughing at us, as we will be doing the exact opposite thanks to Obama's cuts. China? Don't get me started on why China is laughing at us. If what you've posted is your only argument, then quit while you think you're ahead. If you'd like, we can privately debate that....I'd be more than happy to

Don't kid yourself here. The US bloated military is vastly larger than any existential threat it is likely to face

11Bravo · Mar 17, 2015

flogger said:
Don't kid yourself here. The US bloated military is vastly larger than any existential threat it is likely to face

View attachment 67182060

Better to be safe than sorry

Blue_State · Mar 17, 2015

flogger said:
Don't kid yourself here. The US bloated military is vastly larger than any existential threat it is likely to face

View attachment 67182060

11Bravo said:
Better to be safe than sorry

FY2013 was 610 Billion in expenses. The military spending budget is going down. Compare that to Medicare and Medicaid which are surpassing our defense spending. When you look at where that money goes...we do a lot of operations for a lot of other countries. It is part of being the world's police. This is the roll we took on after WWII. There is a cost to that.

That spending brings so much growth to the US. How much is a positive GDP worth?

humbolt · Mar 17, 2015

Montecresto said:
The US isn't to blame for all the worlds woes, and you'd be hard pressed to find a quote of mine suggesting that strawman. The US is responsible for the woes it has created, and partisans such as yourself have no problem pointing them out either, so long as it's diminishing of the other party. Pointing to problems that the US has created during times that our FP was under the direction of either party is what earns one the anti-American label from the frustrated partisan.

No particular quote of yours would say exactly that, but taken as a whole, your attitude strongly suggests that you seek to blame America first. Foreign policy should really exist apart from US partisan politics, and I place blame on those deserving of it here, regardless of party. I am partisan because I am free to express my views these days, and I intend to do so. I have yet to claim any involved in politics to be anti-American here, but I will if I think it is appropriate, particularly and especially as if involves FP. Blaming America first is not the same thing as expressing anti-American views. I view it as simple dismissal - an easy way out.

Montecresto · Mar 17, 2015

11Bravo said:
Russia's economy has certainly taken a hit. But you must be ignorant of their military spending in the last year. Let me educate you. They begun AT1 Manu's in every regiment. They've stacked each line with B9 Cali's and invested in Geospatial imagery components over future sats.

They are certainly laughing at us, as we will be doing the exact opposite thanks to Obama's cuts. China? Don't get me started on why China is laughing at us. If what you've posted is your only argument, then quit while you think you're ahead. If you'd like, we can privately debate that....I'd be more than happy to

That's my whole point dude. Both Russia and China are while still far behind the US, spending increasingly more on their militaries. And USFP has been pushing these two closer together. I hope that's what you want.

Montecresto · Mar 17, 2015

humbolt said:
No particular quote of yours would say exactly that, but taken as a whole, your attitude strongly suggests that you seek to blame America first. Foreign policy should really exist apart from US partisan politics, and I place blame on those deserving of it here, regardless of party. I am partisan because I am free to express my views these days, and I intend to do so. I have yet to claim any involved in politics to be anti-American here, but I will if I think it is appropriate, particularly and especially as if involves FP. Blaming America first is not the same thing as expressing anti-American views. I view it as simple dismissal - an easy way out.

It doesn't matter what you label anybody, understand. And no, acknowledging US failures is anything but easy. What's easy is the patronizing approach of blaming everyone else for America's failures. You partisans righties have no problem trashing the president, the Democratic Party and all it's supporters, and calling it pro American, lol.

Montecresto · Mar 17, 2015

Travis007 said:
Im denying that your posts are anythng but the usual liberal anti american drool..

Trust me I know what it is.. LOL and I also recognize posts of garbage and ignorance..

I also recognize what 'wiki" is also...LOL..

So you are denying American hegemony, lol. :lamo

humbolt · Mar 17, 2015

Montecresto said:
It doesn't matter what you label anybody, understand. And no, acknowledging US failures is anything but easy. What's easy is the patronizing approach of blaming everyone else for America's failures. You partisans righties have no problem trashing the president, the Democratic Party and all it's supporters, and calling it pro American, lol.

Matters to me, and I seek to please myself in that regard. Yes, there are failures and bone-headed moves - anybody who attempts anything will be guilty of that from time to time. There is poor intelligence and misguided policy. That does not dismiss the actions of others. I have no problem trashing this president because his FP is a huge failure, and that's not based on partisanship. It's based on reality and the outcomes witnessed to date. You haughtily hold yourself above the fray, but you get your hands dirty in the politics of FP whether you admit it or not. Complete disengagement is only the avenue of the weak-minded, and you're not among those, either.

Montecresto · Mar 17, 2015

humbolt said:
Matters to me, and I seek to please myself in that regard. Yes, there are failures and bone-headed moves - anybody who attempts anything will be guilty of that from time to time. There is poor intelligence and misguided policy. That does not dismiss the actions of others. I have no problem trashing this president because his FP is a huge failure, and that's not based on partisanship. It's based on reality and the outcomes witnessed to date. You haughtily hold yourself above the fray, but you get your hands dirty in the politics of FP whether you admit it or not. Complete disengagement is only the avenue of the weak-minded, and you're not among those, either.

If you want to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of USFP, fine. But dispense withe the dishonesty of appointing positions to me that I don't hold. You'll be equally hard pressed to quote me arguing for "complete disengagement" try it! Economic warfare and military adventurism is poor policy which has China and Russia doing things you're not going to like.

flogger · Mar 17, 2015

Blue_State said:
FY2013 was 610 Billion in expenses. The military spending budget is going down. Compare that to Medicare and Medicaid which are surpassing our defense spending.

As an outsider I would say that was not before time frankly

When you look at where that money goes...we do a lot of operations for a lot of other countries. It is part of being the world's police. This is the roll we took on after WWII. There is a cost to that.

As a percentage of your GDP theres no excuse for the level of spending you have sustained post Cold War

That spending brings so much growth to the US. How much is a positive GDP worth?

None. Its simply a wasteful burden you have chosen to keep imposing on yourselves at levels close to the height of the Cold War despite the existential threat that warranted it having long since vanished

Travis007 · Mar 17, 2015

Montecresto said:
So you are denying American hegemony, lol. :lamo

Most proud americans call it our duty as the worlds police..in todays termsn

some on your side call it something else..

humbolt · Mar 17, 2015

Montecresto said:
If you want to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of USFP, fine. But dispense withe the dishonesty of appointing positions to me that I don't hold. You'll be equally hard pressed to quote me arguing for "complete disengagement" try it! Economic warfare and military adventurism is poor policy which has China and Russia doing things you're not going to like.

Well, you've spent the last few posts defining my position, so don't gripe about me defining yours when you know as much about my position as you know about my dogs. China and Russia have only rarely done things of late I can even pretend to like, and it's certainly not all the result of US policy.

Montecresto · Mar 17, 2015

Travis007 said:
Most proud americans call it our duty as the worlds police..in todays termsn

some on your side call it something else..

Yes, people love imperialism, hegemony, resource exploitation and war. So long as they're the beneficiaries and victors.

Montecresto · Mar 17, 2015

humbolt said:
Well, you've spent the last few posts defining my position, so don't gripe about me defining yours when you know as much about my position as you know about my dogs. China and Russia have only rarely done things of late I can even pretend to like, and it's certainly not all the result of US policy.

And they're you go again. When did I tell you that everything Russia and China does is a result of US policy, hmm? Look at this again. And study it until you understand it.

China challenges US economic war against Russia

China challenges US economic war against Russia - World Socialist Web Site

Directly challenging the NATO powers’ policy of cutting off credit to Russia to undermine the ruble and bankrupt the Russian economy, China is pledging to extend financial aid to Moscow.

How US Policy Unites Iran and China
November 1, 2014

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/11/01/how-us-policy-unites-iran-and-china/

Do you understand? If you like this trend, then keep on defending USFP!

China, Iran, and Russia never bought into the geopolitical settlement that followed the Cold War, and they are making increasingly forceful attempts to overturn it. That process will not be peaceful, and whether or not the revisionists succeed, their efforts have already shaken the balance of power and changed the dynamics of international politics.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141211/walter-russell-mead/the-return-of-geopolitics

DA60 · Mar 18, 2015

What a load of nonsense.

So, this admiral is worried about Russian cruise missiles. What for?

America spends over 9 times what Russia does on her military and the Russian Armed Forces are a shell of their Cold War self. Russia ...assuming NATO stayed out of a conflict (highly unlikely)...is no match whatsoever against America in a conventional war and they know it. Why on Earth would they start a war with America/Canada knowing they have near-zero chance of victory.
And so what if they have cruise missiles...what would they do with them? If they are conventional, they would hardly matter for the above mentioned reasons. And if they were nuclear-tipped, why use them? The second one explodes on American soil, America will obliterate some/all of Russia. And why use them when they can far more easily do it with ICBM's?

Sounds like another American General-Admiral who wants more and more money for whatever area of interest he has in the military so he drums up whatever nonsense he can to justify more money...or maybe he is just relatively stupid/neurotic.

Whatever the reason, Russian cruise missiles pose NO direct military threat of consequence to America for the simple reason that Russia stands virtually no chance of winning a war against America, so why on Earth would they start it? Besides, America can counter Russian cruise missiles with her own that are much more accurate and carried by far more potent and capable delivery systems.

The story is just neocon drivel. A few 60 year old Russian Bear bombers do some long range sabre-rattling and this Admiral starts to freak out. Get a grip guy.

DA60 · Mar 18, 2015

flogger said:
As an outsider I would say that was not before time frankly

As a percentage of your GDP theres no excuse for the level of spending you have sustained post Cold War

View attachment 67182064

None. Its simply a wasteful burden you have chosen to keep imposing on yourselves at levels close to the height of the Cold War despite the existential threat that warranted it having long since vanished

Very well put, imo.

Btw, where did you get that picture of - what I assume is - a Russian Bear bomber? Farnborough?

Abbazorkzog · Mar 18, 2015

There is no threat from Russia in the near future. Sanctions have damn near crippled Russia's economy, and is forcing them to turn inward for the foreseeable future. No more Russian meddling or incursions. What we'll most likely be seeing is a Nato-Russo proxy war waged in Eastern Ukrainian and Donbas regions in a prolonged conflict with no visible winner, at the most. NATO will never openly engage Russia unless they attack a NATO country, and deliver an attack devastating enough to warrant a response. With sanctions, I don't see that happening. This is just rhetoric to increase NATO's geopolitical domination of Europe.

flogger · Mar 18, 2015

DA60 said:
Btw, where did you get that picture of - what I assume is - a Russian Bear bomber? Farnborough?

Its actually a maritime patrol Bear or TU 142 I photographed at the Kiev national aviation museum in Ukraine in 2010. Here are a couple more pictures with me standing in front of it

DA60 · Mar 18, 2015

flogger said:
Its actually a maritime patrol Bear or TU 142 I photographed at the Kiev national aviation museum in Ukraine in 2010. Here are a couple more pictures with me standing in front of it

View attachment 67182080
View attachment 67182081

Very cool.

The Bear is one of my favorite military aircraft.

It has props, but is as fast as a jet and one of the loudest planes ever to go into production apparently.

flogger · Mar 18, 2015

DA60 said:
Very cool.

The Bear is one of my favorite military aircraft.

It has props, but is as fast as a jet and one of the loudest planes ever to go into production apparently.

The Kiev aviation museum was great for checking out the ex Soviet stuff and given I'm ex RAF myself it was great being amongst the enemy machines from my era that we feared so much. Can you identify these Cold War warriors ?

DA60 · Mar 18, 2015

flogger said:
The Kiev aviation museum was great for checking out the ex Soviet stuff and given I'm ex RAF myself it was great being amongst the enemy machines from my era that we feared so much. Can you identify these Cold War warriors ?

View attachment 67182085
View attachment 67182086
View attachment 67182087

Only two of them...the first one I believe is the V/STOL Yak they used on Kiev-class ships, but I forget the number. 44? (Note...I looked it up after typing this. It was the Yak-38)

The other two are a Backfire and a Foxbat.

VERY COOL.

The Foxbat is one of my other all-time favorite military aircraft. Apparently one was caught on radar flying over Israel in the 70's doing Mach 3.2...but when it got back to base, the motors were destroyed.
I also read that the radar was crude but INCREDIBLY powerful. Some sho that they had to leave it off on the ground and when they did turn it in, it would kill small animals that got in it's way. Not sure if was true or not.
I loved the Soviet way for their military equipment...logic, innovation and brute force to make up for technological deficiencies.
It didn't make up for it entirely, but it sure produced some neat weapons systems.

flogger · Mar 18, 2015

DA60 said:
Only two of them...the first one I believe is the V/STOL Yak they used on Kiev-class ships, but I forget the number. 44? (Note...I looked it up after typing this. It was the Yak-38)

Its NATO Code name was Forger and it turned out to be pretty useless with hopeless payload carrying abilities. It was just for showing the flag on the Kiev class vessels really

The other two are a Backfire

Thats the underpowered Backfire A version with the Phantom style inlets

and a Foxbat.

This was the photo recce version and was extremely fast. Redlined at M 2.85

VERY COOL.

If you think thats cool what am I now sitting in ?

DA60 · Mar 18, 2015

flogger said:
Its NATO Code name was Forger and it turned out to be pretty useless with hopeless payload carrying abilities. It was just for showing the flag on the Kiev class vessels really

Thats the underpowered Backfire A version with the Phantom style inlets

This was the photo recce version and was extremely fast. Redlined at M 2.85

If you think thats cool what am I now sitting in ?

View attachment 67182088

Hmmm...you got me.

A Mig 23-27?

I can tell it's Soviet design from the turquoise interior...I read they all are painted that color.

It's so cool you got to sit in it...whatever it is.

flogger · Mar 18, 2015

DA60 said:
Hmmm...you got me.

A Mig 23-27?

I can tell it's Soviet design from the turquoise interior...I read they all are painted that color.

It's so cool you got to sit in it...whatever it is.

Its a Mig 23S FLOGGER the 27 had plain inlets. I used to use this photo as my avatar. This was taken at the Red Army Museum in Moscow back in 2009. They used to paint the interiors turquoise because it was thought this colour had mentally soothing properties in the high workload analogue cockpits of Russian aircraft back in the day

U.S. admiral raises alarm over Russian military threat

iliveonramen

Pontificator

flogger

11Bravo

Blue_State

humbolt

Montecresto

Montecresto

Montecresto

humbolt

Montecresto

flogger

Travis007

humbolt

Montecresto

Montecresto

DA60

DA60

Abbazorkzog

Zapatista Libertarian

flogger

DA60

flogger

DA60

flogger

DA60

flogger