People keep saying that, but they don’t really understand that Ukraine never really had nukes in the sense that you mean. Imagine a scenario where South Dakota suddenly became independent. Yes, they would have physical custody of a goodly number of ICBMs … but no operational control over them. They wouldn’t have the codes to launch them or access to the C2 network to change their targets. Furthermore, those ICBMs are designed to hit targets in the Eastern Hemisphere, so they wouldn’t be able to deter their neighbors with them. Possibly, South Dakota could break down the warheads for the fissionable material and make them into more practical weapons, but that takes quite a bit of expertise that isn’t just sitting around South Dakota. You might say it is in South Dakota’s interest to go ahead and negotiate the return of those weapons in exchange for something else. Such was the situation Ukraine had in 1994. Given the information they had at the time, it was not a terrible decision.
Ok? Why does this mean we have to spend more on defense? We have the highest defense budget in the world by a huge margin. What is one pipeline that hasnt been completed and wont be now suddenly a strategic priority because of a war in Ukraine? Seems people have been trained pretty well around here to double down on all the stuff we've been invested in for decades. Which got us ... here.
Or be accused of being a deep state right-winger. Frankly I'll admit fully & have said repeatedly I'm no expert & have no issues being corrected. I dont watch Fox, I read what comes on my MSN feed, I watch CNN. Etc. So if I've somehow messed up on Keystone apologies all around. I'm sure that was discussed when it happened and that was during my hiatus. This isn't the thread for this though and I apologize for derailing jt.
Because NATO doesn't have the strength in Europe right now to repel Russia by conventional means. That means they could invade a member state just like they did Ukraine and our only realistic options would be to deploy our nuclear deterrent or let Russia conquer Europe country by country. There's just not a choice anymore. We have to build up NATO's European defenses so they can go toe to toe with Russia in a conventional war. Whether it's us that pays for it or the Europeans, someone has to. We can't just hope that Putin calls it a legacy after taking Ukraine.
Because we’re within a couple thousand people of having the smallest military we’ve had since 1940 in the face of potentially having to fight an actual full scale war for the first time since the early 1970s, and we can’t economically hit Russia where it hurts (the energy sector) because our allies (and to a lesser degree we ourselves) would get stung too bad by cutting the Russian fossil fuel industry out of the world market? Those seem like decent reasons to increase military spending and try to improve our energy independence.
That's just ludicrous. The combined forces of NATO aren't a match militarily for a country with an economy the size of Italy? Good lord. Sort of contradicts the argument that if Ukraine had been allowed in NATO none of this would have happened.
Now that’s not fair making NATO European countries pay for their own defense….the American taxpayer will gladly pick up the bill. Good post.
I'm no expert on this stuff, but I have wondered this before. From what I can tell, Russia's GDP is less than New York's. How is it going to afford a long term war against multiple countries if it gets to that?
I mean, feel free to point out the European arsenal that can stop Russia. Carrier battle groups aren't going to win us a ground war in Eastern Europe.
Our PM just called Putin a dictator and said "eventually, military support" will take place. Interesting given so many accuse his Government of taking a lot of financial support from Russian oligarchs... Sadly, he's an idiot. I have no faith in him to do the right thing in supporting Ukraine adequately.
Funny. What comes to mind from repeating the name of the former president is the sound of Russian boots marching into Ukraine.
So, in your mind, Russia, who just like the United States could not surpress 1 insurgency in a backwater country like Afghanistan, is going to roll across Europe and fight 15+ insurgencies across the continent? And, you would suggest a strategy of returning to the cold war, with massive military spending and presence in Europe? I am not even saying you are wrong, just asking you to clarify your position on what should be done??
Are we going to hire mercenaries or something? If you can explain to me how we get numbers for a ground war by spending, let me know. Those tanks and guns need soldiers. We have a massive military budget, yet a small number of soldiers comparitively. Hmm, why is that?
I would rather not rely on insurgencies to save the day. My suggestion would be to have enough tanks, missiles, planes, troops, artillery, and warships stationed in or around Europe to conventionally defeat the invading Russian force we're seeing in Ukraine right now. Whether we need Cold War spending levels to achieve that goal is a question I can't answer. It seems to me that the combined forces of all the NATO countries should be able to outmatch Russia without bankrupting the western world, we just have to make it an actual defense objective instead of an afterthought.
Our military alone has ~40% more active duty personnel than Russia. The NATO block has close to a billion people in it compared to ~150 million in Russia. You really think we can't find enough manpower to beat them?
