Can you please explain how a list of countries with the highest military expenditures is evidence that weapons used by the US aren’t bought/produced for a ridiculous markup?
I still don’t understand what evidence you’re finding on these Wikipedia pages. Like, ok, I read the Wikipedia page for the F-22. What am I supposed to get out of my reading? What should I have learned from that page?
Can you please actually draw the connection you’re making, explicitly? Because I legitimately do not understand what you’re trying to say
You are replying to a series of comments about NATO not being able to field an actual war against Russia.
if NATO decides to field a war against russia with the war assets they spend trillions on such as hundreds of f22, almost a thousand f35, a hundred nuclear submarines and all the shit they have like the most advanced cyberwarfare weapons in the world, how does russia respond?
So all these Wikipedia articles are evidence for the claim “NATO would trounce Russia if they were actually trying”? And the evidence I’m supposed to be getting from these articles is “look at all these extremely expensive war planes, clearly they’re better than their Russian counterparts, they’re more expensive”.
You want me to answer the question that is your last paragraph?
I have no idea! I don’t live in Russia, I’m not well-versed in modern warfare and military technology, I haven’t studied diplomacy, I have no idea how Russia would respond if nato suddenly brings to bear every piece of military hardware it can muster.
Literally all I’m saying is that more expensive doesn’t always mean better quality. That’s literally it
Literally all I’m saying is that more expensive doesn’t always mean better quality. That’s literally it
You are right, more expensive doesn’t always mean better quality or more products that’s why I am referring to assets made with these money that show that in this case spending 10x more than everyone else is resulting in a bigger and more advanced army
in this case spending 10x more than everyone else is resulting in a bigger and more advanced army
This is the part I think you haven’t shown, even a little bit. First you linked a wikipedia page which was a list of countries with the highest military expenditures, then you linked wikipedia pages for a bunch of american military hardware. At no point did you try to compare american military hardware with Russian military hardware, either in quantity or quality. The only comparison you’ve made is in terms of expense.
It’s not that hard you can compare it yourself, google how many military assets russia have. USA spend a trillion in war each year and as a result they have almost a thousand operative fifth generation planes (for comparison russia has less than 25). USA has about 70 nuclear submarines where russia has 20
Again just look at the evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_B-2_Spirit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_States_Navy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_the_United_States_Navy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XKeyscore
These are just some random USA war assets, in case you fail to understand what spending a trillion dollars a year in war gets you.
I still don’t understand what evidence you’re finding on these Wikipedia pages. Like, ok, I read the Wikipedia page for the F-22. What am I supposed to get out of my reading? What should I have learned from that page?
Can you please actually draw the connection you’re making, explicitly? Because I legitimately do not understand what you’re trying to say
You are replying to a series of comments about NATO not being able to field an actual war against Russia.
if NATO decides to field a war against russia with the war assets they spend trillions on such as hundreds of f22, almost a thousand f35, a hundred nuclear submarines and all the shit they have like the most advanced cyberwarfare weapons in the world, how does russia respond?
They could just carpet nuke usa 10x over. There is no winning against a nuclear power.
So all these Wikipedia articles are evidence for the claim “NATO would trounce Russia if they were actually trying”? And the evidence I’m supposed to be getting from these articles is “look at all these extremely expensive war planes, clearly they’re better than their Russian counterparts, they’re more expensive”.
Is that a fair characterization of your point?
You didn’t answer the question, go ahead and bring up the 10x cheaper russian assets that can match fleets of f22 and f35
Artillery, antiair, icbms, nukes, drones, submarines
You want me to answer the question that is your last paragraph?
I have no idea! I don’t live in Russia, I’m not well-versed in modern warfare and military technology, I haven’t studied diplomacy, I have no idea how Russia would respond if nato suddenly brings to bear every piece of military hardware it can muster.
Literally all I’m saying is that more expensive doesn’t always mean better quality. That’s literally it
You are right, more expensive doesn’t always mean better quality or more products that’s why I am referring to assets made with these money that show that in this case spending 10x more than everyone else is resulting in a bigger and more advanced army
This is the part I think you haven’t shown, even a little bit. First you linked a wikipedia page which was a list of countries with the highest military expenditures, then you linked wikipedia pages for a bunch of american military hardware. At no point did you try to compare american military hardware with Russian military hardware, either in quantity or quality. The only comparison you’ve made is in terms of expense.
It’s not that hard you can compare it yourself, google how many military assets russia have. USA spend a trillion in war each year and as a result they have almost a thousand operative fifth generation planes (for comparison russia has less than 25). USA has about 70 nuclear submarines where russia has 20