re: Russia Pounds ISIS With Biggest Bomber Raid in Decades

So 70 Billion > 600 Billion?

Russia has wasteful spending just like the U.S. does but you can't be serious with this shite?

We are retooling our military after fighting 2 wars. Our power projection is second to none. We currently have 11 active carrier strike groups that are being modernized to defend against anti-ship missiles that Russia, China, Iran and, N Korea possess. The US Navy also maintains 9 Expeditionary strike groups with Amphibious Assault Ships. Russia has one carrier group. Even if we were "cutting our Military to the bone" as you suggest, Russia and China combined still do not have the ability to match our forces.

It's ludicrous to say that we are not developing our military. Have you seen the U.S.S Zumwalt, Independence, and Freedom Class Vessels? We are pivoting towards fighting a different kind of enemy and technology allows us to do more with less.

As someone who personally worked on DoD appropriations I can tell you that we have capabilities that the general public has no clue about. Your false narrative is getting tired.

quote:

---

So 70 Billion > 600 Billion?

Russia has wasteful spending just like the U.S. does but you can't be serious with this shite?

We are retooling our military after fighting 2 wars. Our power projection is second to none. We currently have 11 active carrier strike groups that are being modernized to defend against anti-ship missiles that Russia, China, Iran and, N Korea possess. The US Navy also maintains 9 Expeditionary strike groups with Amphibious Assault Ships. Russia has one carrier group. Even if we were "cutting our Military to the bone" as you suggest, Russia and China combined still do not have the ability to match our forces.

It's ludicrous to say that we are not developing our military. Have you seen the U.S.S Zumwalt, Independence, and Freedom Class Vessels? We are pivoting towards fighting a different kind of enemy and technology allows us to do more with less.

As someone who personally worked on DoD appropriations I can tell you that we have capabilities that the general public has no clue about. Your false narrative is getting tired.

---

Once again with the talk of our naval superiority. Yes, our navy is head and shoulders above the rest of the world combined. But when it comes to Russia and countering the threat they pose, it's not the Navy that would be the branch of decision. The brunt of a war against Russia would be fought on the continent of Europe and decided by conventional land forces and land based air forces. The navy would play a pivotal role in keeping shipping lanes open. But the war itself would be fought in Central Europe. And to fight this land war in Europe, we'd need a much larger standing army than what we have now. We're simply not equipped for or have the correct force structure to fight a major land war in Europe.

quote:

---

So are you delta force? Code name agent black?

---

Huh?

I think it's Russia's way of putting it in Obama's face. And their action shows what our true stance from the head of our country is. You can count on Russia to almost always do the exact opposite of what we want them to do.

Our president has done everything he can to reduce the attention to Isis or Isil (as he calls it). He refuses to achknowledge that they are a terrorist group, that they are murdering anyone that refuses to convert, all while pushing to let 100k of them in a year to the US under secrecy.

I think that the actions of Russia are to exhibit their power, to put it in Obama's eye, and to do what they have to do to get oil to rise for their economy.

quote:

---

Once again with the talk of our naval superiority. Yes, our navy is head and shoulders above the rest of the world combined. But when it comes to Russia and countering the threat they pose, it's not the Navy that would be the branch of decision. The brunt of a war against Russia would be fought on the continent of Europe and decided by conventional land forces and land based air forces. The navy would play a pivotal role in keeping shipping lanes open. But the war itself would be fought in Central Europe. And to fight this land war in Europe, we'd need a much larger standing army than what we have now. We're simply not equipped for or have the correct force structure to fight a major land war in Europe.

---

Our MEUs would most definitely play a critical role in your scenario. Our carriers would play a critical role in establishing air superiority on the coast and striking initial inland targets. Our destroyers would play a critical role with their missile capabilities. Do you think we would be flying all of our troops and equipment to Europe?


What is your solution to this so called dilemma? Besides soldiers, what does the Army, AF and Marines need to develop to face today's threats? What is missing? It is not necessary to have a massive standing army strictly for posturing purposes.

quote:

---

If Europe feels that Russia poses a threat then they need to get their shite together and strengthen their military.

---

I think Europe has a more pressing issue to deal with right now than Russia.

quote:

---

Our MEUs would most definitely play a critical role in your scenario. Our carriers would play a critical role in establishing air superiority on the coast and striking initial inland targets. Our destroyers would play a critical role with their missile capabilities. Do you think we would be flying all of our troops and equipment to Europe?

---

Our carrier groups would not be sent any closer than the North Sea or central Med. Putting them any closer to Central Europe would make them too vulnerable to swarms of Russian anti-shipping missiles. As for MEU's each is about the equivalent of a light mixed brigade. They would be effective for perhaps defending key entry ports along the coast of France, thus allowing heavier and larger formations to be brought in. We'd have to have these ports to deploy our forces from since we don't really have any ground forces in Europe today capable of stemming the tide of a full scale invasion.

And as for flying in our forces, this would work for light infantry units. But to deploy heavy units, we'd have to have sea ports to bring them in on ships. And this goes back to what I've already said would be the main role of the Navy in a European War, namely keeping the shipping lanes open between North America and Europe. If Russia were able to cut the shipping lanes, that's ballgame. Thus, instead of using the Navy to fight in Central Europe, we'd have to have them focused on the Atlantic.

quote:

---

What is your solution to this so called dilemma? Besides soldiers, what does the Army, AF and Marines need to develop to face today's threats? What is missing? It is not necessary to have a massive standing army strictly for posturing purposes.

---

Ideally, European Countries would build up their own standing armies to counter the Russians, But even with that, we'd still need to keep at least a corps sized Army formation (something like 2 Armored Divisions, 1 Infantry Div, and at least 2 Armored Cav Regiments) ready to go either via an updated version of REFORGER or already based in Europe itself.

First you claim this...

quote:

---

Russia has rearmed and are once again a global power capable of projecting devastating power on a global level.

---

then you say

quote:

---

The brunt of a war against Russia would be fought on the continent of Europe

---

Does not equal the ability of projecting devastating power on a global level.

Russia is like a new money millionaire that buys a 20 million dollar yacht. Can they afford the yacht? sure. Can they afford to maintain said yacht? hell no.

In addition, we have not faced immediate threats that require us to develop specific defensive or offensive systems. The Iron Dome system was developed and deployed at lightening speed due to an imminent threat of constant rocket and missile attacks in Israel. The system is truly amazing to watch. For those who haven't seen it in action, I encourage you to go to you tube.

Our military will continue to adapt and evolve to threats against the US, but it just doesn't make since for us to have a large standing army and measure our dicks with Russia.

quote:

---

That one raid was larger than anything we've done since Vietnam. And they launched it from within Russia to strike a target in Syria.

---

That's a distance of 600-800 miles one way. Not very impressive. Would be the equivalent to us striking targets in Canada or Mexico.

Not to mention the raid was against an enemy with zero air defense capability.