re: The 35 most powerful militaries in the world

quote:

---

?

They give you an instant way to project air superiority at almost any region of the world.

---

If you read my post as well as the one I was responding to then I have no idea what you are confused about. I did not in any way indicate that carriers are not vital to projecting force across the globe, so not sure what this is suppose to be a response to.

quote:

---

They are also not going charging in with carriers on the battlefield so you don't need them for regional power, just support in the air. Once you can establish multiple air strips and project tactical and functional air superiority then the carriers can leave.

---

Again, not sure what you are addressing here. The Russians don't need carriers to exert influence or war upon their neighbors. They also don't need carriers to protect themselves from some other power's potential threat to them.

Carriers are a luxury, and if you wish to be an effective global hegemon, a necessity. They allow you to exert power all over, greater flexibility, etc, but they aren't necessarily a game changer in every military engagement nor do they fit the needs of all countries or their militaries. Let's put it like this, did carriers help the United States in it's war against Germany in WWII? No, but they were absolutely vital in the Pacific Campaign.

quote:

---

How can Poland only spend 18 million and have any military

---

because of NATO

quote:

---

do the people in Russia's military need to eat?

---

Yes. And to be honest Russia does not do near as well at feeding itself as it does at arming itself which could conceivably lead to a war against Europe in the future. If there was a protracted war between the West and Russia, unless Russia could secure areas like the Ukraine and Poland, Russia would within a few months start feeling the pinch of food shortages. But the problem here is it's doubtful that such a war would last that long due to the fact one side or the other would have landed a knockout punch before food stocks became a deciding factor.

quote:

---

Again, not sure what you are addressing here. The Russians don't need carriers to exert influence or war upon their neighbors. They also don't need carriers to protect themselves from some other power's potential threat to them.

Carriers are a luxury, and if you wish to be an effective global hegemon, a necessity. They allow you to exert power all over, greater flexibility, etc, but they aren't necessarily a game changer in every military engagement nor do they fit the needs of all countries or their militaries. Let's put it like this, did carriers help the United States in it's war against Germany in WWII? No, but they were absolutely vital in the Pacific Campaign.

---

Good point. Carriers are great if you want to be a global maritime power. But that's not what Russia wants or really even needs. Instead they are a classic example of a great Continental power.

quote:

---

Calling bullshite off the bat. The US in no way has 145,000,000 people in the military, that is almost 50% of our population.

---

I'm assuming that someone has figured this out, but the manpower count is an estimate of what's called "available manpower". It's simply based upon population and demographics. In CIA's projections, they estimate able-bodied males between 18 and I believe 44.

quote:

---

Thank goodness Ronald Reagan had the same foresight you have.

---

I think it's pretty much been common knowledge as far back as the 60's that if WWIII ever did break out the Russians would need tactical nukes at sea while NATO would probably need them on land. Hell, where I was stationed back in the 80's (Fulda, Germany) the US had deployed a little over a decade before I got there, a small nuclear recoilless guns code-named the "Davy Crockett"

quote:

---

The Davy Crockett recoilless spigot gun was developed in the late 1950s for use against Soviet armor and troops if war broke out in Europe. Davy Crockett Sections were assigned to USAREUR (United States Army Europe) armor and mechanized and non-mechanized infantry battalions. During alerts to the Inner German border in the Fulda Gap the Davy Crocketts accompanied their battalions. All V Corps (including 3rd Armored Division) combat maneuver battalions had preassigned positions in the Fulda Gap. These were known as GDP (General Defense Plan) positions. The Davy Crockett sections were included in these defensive deployment plans. In addition to the Davy Crocketts (e.g., assigned to the 3rd Armored Division), V Corps had nuclear artillery rounds and Atomic Demolition Mines, and these were also targeted on the Fulda Gap.

---

LINK

To be honest I think both of us were thinking along different lines. I absolutely agree with you on the near uselessness of a carrier fleet against an opponent the likes of Russia, they would be like mentioned a luxury in that war not a necessity.

Their usefulness would be shown in a different theater such as one held in the Pacific against some form of NK-Chinese threat.

quote:

---

8k nukes each, that's a bit overkill.

---

You must be pretty young. There used to be a helluva lot more than that:

(no message)