[niknik]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Russia isn't doing anything that we are not, bottom line.

When your nation spends more on its military than the next 10 nations combined, has every form of WMD ever developed, and has its military spread around the World to protect and promote that nations interests........ Who are we to criticize Russia?

I don't see it as criticism. I think it's just recognizing what's going on. America has put its nuclear program on the back burner, our arsenal isn't up to par with Russia. And Russia is and has been building tactical nukes at a alarming rate.
Also Russia nor China are up front with the money they spend on military. So it's impossible to know how much they spend. But one thing is for sure, Russia is doing more militarily than America is. So I don't believe your statement on American military spending is true.

[niknik]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

Anyone that don't see Russia is building an future, with aggressive intent, are either blind and naive, or just wish bad things for the west.

I think it's mostly the latter. These same people would most likely be very critical of America unveiling a new generation a nuclear armed subs, or if our president told other nations "it's best not to mess with America". While pointing to our nuclear weapons.

It's as if because America has a strong military we shouldn't take notice of nations who are historically unfriendly building military and weapons capabilities.

We should. And we should find out why. And while our aim should be to prevent war, and find common ground. We must look at Russian military expansion and nuclear build up as a possible threat. And treat it accordingly.

It would be foolish if America just shrugged it's shoulders and went back to sleep. Even if it's for nothing we should take notice and make certain we are prepared to fight any conceivable threat.

America has too long tried to appease those who are critical of our building of safety nets and deterrents. While these same nations build what they asked us not too.

Why shouldn't there be a missile interceptors all over allied nations? They are a defensive weapon, but Russia objects.

[Mr Poo]

Originally Posted by commondenom ↗

for the record every time a bank reports a drop in profit or goes bankrupt i think it's a good thing....money is definitely the most damaging thing humans have ever created...so fuck em..

and yeah...a couple of years is required to get a country under sanctions running effectively under it's own steam but a couple of years isn't a long time...

That was my whole point, it's only been months. They are ways away for thinking about self reliance currently. Hence, the sanctions ARE having an effect on their economy even if only temporarily. I think by that time, the sanctions will be over and Putin will finally hit military menopause.

[Mr Poo]

Originally Posted by ralucagymnast ↗

To be honest, Russia is still very much a nation in a state of transition at the moment. Its trying to undo the chaos left behind by more than half a century of communism. After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, a lot of people got very rich very quickly as Russia opened up its door to free market and enterprise aka capitalism. Organised crime mushroomed, the oligarchs were able to infiltrate every single echelon of politics.Dont forget, before Stalin, Russia was very much a peasant feudal land with a draconian dictatorial monarchy in charge.After the Revolution, Russia made ENORMOUS progress, so much so that in 30 years they were able to achieve what would have taken 150-200 years in the West to achieve.But it came with a terrible toll, in terms of human lives lost to slave labour in the Gulags. But you cannot deny the fact that in just 30 years it became one of the major players on the world stage; a true superpower. In just 4 years it was able to develop an atomic bomb, something the West thought would be impossible to achieve. Russia was able to marshall all its resources into one project in a way that no other country could. After WW2 Russia was literally "on its knees"; its infrastructure had been damaged almost irreparably, but in 4 short years, it was able to build nuclear weapons. Quite an incredible achievement for a country which had been almost annihilated by war. Dont forget, I lived in Romania, under Ceausescu's rule; we had a state apartment, bread on the table, clothes on our backs. We had an education, excelled in sports. Of course "material goods" were very hard to come by, but what youve never had, you never miss it? Russia today is trying to undo the damage of more than half a century of chaos. To be honest, I dont see why NATO is still around? NATO was created after WW2 to counter the threat posed by the USSR and the armies of the Warsaw Pact. Once USSR fell, so did the Warsaw Pact, so why is NATO not redundant also?? I dont really think that Russia wants to attack anybody; they are trying to build up a strong economy, just like any other country. What is wrong with that?

I can agree with some of what you are saying but not everything..

How can you say Putin doesn't want to attack anyone when he already militarily annexed Crimea and has active tank batallians fighting in Eastern Ukraine?

Why would NATO break up just because the USSR broke up? Allies don't just halt alliances because a common threat is gone.

[Mr Poo]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

Russia is spending billions on military, and modernizing it's nuclear weapons. They've greatly increased its air patrols and surveillance around American territories. As well as been very active running numerous large military exercises.

Russia is preparing for war. Not that I think they want to fight the United States, but they want to be strong enough it would be foolish for America to interfere in their plans.

Sure they want a strong economy. At whose expense? I think Russia has already shown why NATO is still very much needed. If Putin was only looking for peaceful prosperity then why did he point to his nuclear weapons recently?

Why does Putin invade Ukraine? How is that not attacking anybody?

Most importantly why does Russia have so many nuclear weapons? In a time that America has been bound by treaties and agreements to decommission nuclear stockpiles. Russia has it's nuclear program going full throttle. Which is why they are currently so bold, Putin either believes he can defeat the west, or the west will be intimidated.

We spend an extreme amount more on our Military than Russia does..





These statistics are from 2013 so here are the current numbers:

The US military budget is $495.6 billion, but total defense spending is $738.8 billion.

The Russian government's published 2014 military budget is about 2.49 trillion rubles (approximately US$69.3 billion)

[ices]

Originally Posted by TheVrist ↗

Anyone that don't see Russia is building an future, with aggressive intent, are either blind and naive, or just wish bad things for the west.

ANd it has nothing to do with the US anti-nuke shield they have been setting up the past 20 years?

Think for one second outside of your own prejudices. Ukraine was a stop-gap for Russia between Nato and itself.

The US undermined this by creating a coup within Ukraine and Russia had to step in to get Crimea. If a neighbour invaded your sphere of influence and plonked themselves near your territory you telling me you wont do anything about it?

You can have 1000+ nukes or as little as 100. Even one nuke going off would send the world into a tail spin of destruction and doom mongering. The world economy would collapse.

[commondenom]

if russia is stocking up on military equipment it's because the US has a reputation of sticking its nose in where it shouldn't...

be sure that russia is not iraq, or syria.....if the US tries to get involved in russian politics you can be sure that russia will send a message that the US will have to listen to....unfortunately ego runs US politics so the message would fall on deaf ears...pity but it's the way it is....

fingers crossed the leaders on all sides realise (and i'm sure they do) that war between the largest militaries on the planet would bring about nothing good for anyone....

there is a lot of chest beating going on and regardless of our opinions the current crop of leaders aren't totally dumb.....none of them want to go to war

[niknik]

Originally Posted by Mr Poo ↗

We spend an extreme amount more on our Military than Russia does..





These statistics are from 2013 so here are the current numbers:

The US military budget is $495.6 billion, but total defense spending is $738.8 billion.

The Russian government's published 2014 military budget is about 2.49 trillion rubles (approximately US$69.3 billion)

I've already addressed that. I'm obviously a lot more aware of the fact Russia hides it's military endeavors.

If you subtract all the money spent in Afghanistan and Iraq. I bet our numbers aren't nearly as far apart. Not more, but much closer.

Common sense will tell you their numbers you posted aren't legit. They have thousands of nukes.. Not only do they cost billions to build, and place. They cost billions to maintain. Hell they probably spend more than 69 billion in fuel every year.. Come on man!

[niknik]

Originally Posted by commondenom ↗

if russia is stocking up on military equipment it's because the US has a reputation of sticking its nose in where it shouldn't...

be sure that russia is not iraq, or syria.....if the US tries to get involved in russian politics you can be sure that russia will send a message that the US will have to listen to....unfortunately ego runs US politics so the message would fall on deaf ears...pity but it's the way it is....

fingers crossed the leaders on all sides realise (and i'm sure they do) that war between the largest militaries on the planet would bring about nothing good for anyone....

there is a lot of chest beating going on and regardless of our opinions the current crop of leaders aren't totally dumb.....none of them want to go to war

Nobody has that many nukes just so nobody picks on them.

[Mr Poo]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

I've already addressed that. I'm obviously a lot more aware of the fact Russia hides it's military endeavors.

If you subtract all the money spent in Afghanistan and Iraq. I bet our numbers aren't nearly as far apart. Not more, but much closer.

Common sense will tell you their numbers you posted aren't legit. They have thousands of nukes.. Not only do they cost billions to build, and place. They cost billions to maintain. Hell they probably spend more than 69 billion in fuel every year.. Come on man!

For someone who tries to come off as knowing things, you should really learn about them before just assuming.

They cost billions to build, try millions. 69 billion in fuel every year.. Or $250 billion to refurbish our entire arsenal for another 30 years..

The United States hasn’t built a new nuclear warhead or bomb since the 1990s, but it has refurbished several types in recent years to extend their lifetime. The DOE is currently refurbishing as many as 2,000 submarine-based W76 warheads at a cost of roughly $2 million each.

Next up for life extension is the B61 bomb. It will undergo much more extensive modifications than the W76, and the estimated price tag reflects this: It will cost $8 billion to $10 billion to refurbish 400 to 500 B61 bombs—about $20 million each.

The United States plans to replace its entire arsenal with a suite of five new weapon types over the next 25 to 30 years, violating the spirit if not the letter of President Obama’s 2010 pledge not to develop new nuclear warheads. Dubbed “3+2,” the plan would result in three weapon types for long-range missiles, and two for delivery by aircraft. One would be deployed on an air-launched cruise missile and one would be a bomb. Ultimately, the plan calls for some 3,000 of these new weapons at an estimated cost of $60 billion, or $20 million each. However, it likely will be cheaper to renovate the B61 than build one of these new weapons, so $60 billion probably underestimates the cost.

The delivery systems are more expensive: The Minuteman III land-based missiles, which carry one warhead, cost about $50 million each in today’s dollars. The DOD is modifying them to extend their lifetime at a cost of about $15 million each. Thus, the cost of each deployed land-based nuclear weapon would be roughly $85 million.

The DOD also is modifying Trident submarine-based missiles—which initially cost about $100 million each—to extend their lifetimes at a cost of about $140 million apiece.

The Navy’s plan is to replace 12 of its nuclear-armed submarines starting next decade, at a cost of some $8 billion each. Each new submarine would carry 16 Trident missiles that likely would have four warheads, for a total of 64 warheads per vessel. Thus, the total cost for each submarine-based nuclear warhead would be roughly $200 million.

The W80 warhead, meanwhile, is deployed on air-launched cruise missiles and would be delivered by B52 bombers. The cruise missiles cost roughly $1 million each. The bombers, which were built back in the 1950s at a cost of $650 million each in today’s dollars, can carry 12 cruise missiles—for a per warhead cost of $55 million. Adding in the cost of a new warhead would bring the total to $75 million per deployed weapon.

Finally, B61 and B83 bombs would be delivered by B2 bombers—the so-called stealth bomber. It cost some $80 billion to develop and build 21 of these planes, or $4 billion per B2 bomber, and the current life extension program will cost $10 billion. Each can carry up to 16 bombs, so the total cost of each deployed bomb would be roughly $270 million, taking into account its share of the bomber.

What does all this add up to? Assuming the DOE and DOD plans move forward, and the United States makes further modest reductions in its deployed and reserve arsenal (to a total of 3,000 weapons) the United States will spend some $250 billion on new nuclear warheads and delivery systems in the next few decades.