Secretary of the U.S. Air Force: Russia is an existential threat to the United States

[Ulmita]

Interview on Fox: http://video.foxnews.com/v/507377740...#sp=show-clips

The question is: When does the fear-mongering stop? When does scaring people for higher budget becomes unethical?

Instead of everyone chilling, they just promote hysteria over and over and over again. I really do not get this.

[Adam Jensen]

She's not wrong.

Note that she said Russia "could" present an existential threat, not that it does (as in Russia isn't politically a threat because they'd never strike us first.)

Just because the Cold War is over, doesn't mean Russia's nuclear arsenal doesn't have MAD capabilities with the US.

[namecraft]

here we go again
waste more tax money on weapons of mass destruction

[GrinningMan]

I think Russia has plenty of problems to deal with. Jabbing the sleeping bear is probably the last thing on their mind.

[Independent voter]

You have a humiliated people, a super corrupt strong man who comes and tells them he will regain their honor. What's that remind you of? Germany 1932? But I guess Hitler wasn't corrupt.

There's even the parallel were Russia is helping ethnic Russians in other countries by intervening, Georgia, Ukraine, Crimea etc. Some say part of what caused WWII is that ethnic Germans in other countries were mistreated.

[Uzkin]

You just blew the minds of several shitposters by comparing Putin to Hitler. I hope the poor bastards will be okay.

Shitposters have compared Putin to Hitler for years now. Such a repetitive behaviour hardly blows anyone's mind any more.

- - - Updated - - -

She's not wrong.

Note that she said Russia "could" present an existential threat, not that it does (as in Russia isn't politically a threat because they'd never strike us first.)

Just because the Cold War is over, doesn't mean Russia's nuclear arsenal doesn't have MAD capabilities with the US.

The United States could present an existential threat to the entire world! OMGOMG!!!

[dd614]

These military pigs just want to keep their gravy train going by saber-rattling endlessly against Russia. You have Hillary talking about setting up no-fly zones in Syria and shooting down Russian planes, basically to defend ISIS and al Nusra from Russian bombing. I hope shit hits the fan when Wikileaks shows proof that America armed ISIS. Send Hillary and all her crony pigs to jail for the rest of their lives and just for fun, the Bush clan and their cronies as well.

[melodramocracy]

Her saying otherwise would lead to questions like "why are we spending so much on military?". So there you go.

Citizens are sort of like employees. You always want them worried.

[Mihalik]

Russia is an existential threat to everyone for 3 reasons.

1, Russia historically has a defense policy of -More land. There are very good reasons for this from a Russian standpoint, unfortunately if you don't want to be Russian or to be a Russian satellite state and you happen to be in arms reach of Russia, you are kinda fucked.

2, Russia always, always had imperial ambitions. Partly because of the above. Partly because a raging inferiority complex that is part of the Russian national psyche. Partly because Russia seen itself and continues seeing itself as a successor to the Byzantine Empire (this is where religion among other things comes into play).

3, Russia has nukes and the means to get them anywhere, and it universally refuses to play ball with NATO, (see reason 2).

In fact that only countries that pose an existential threat to the US are Russia and China, and of the two only Russia has a history of recent armed hostilities against US and NATO interests.

- - - Updated - - -

The United States could present an existential threat to the entire world! OMGOMG!!!

It does tho.

What is your point exactly?

The US could, if it chose to elect an incompetent maniac like Donald Trump, who in effect could single handedly blow up the planet, if he wanted to, just because someone made fun of his tiny hands.

That doesn't change the fact that Russia is an existential threat to all its neighbors, NATO, the US and the world as a whole.

One thing doesn't rule out the other.

[May90]

Considering that you are the only one concerned by this news around here, I don't think "fear-mongering" is that big.

[Theodarzna]

“We are going to do a terrible thing to you, We are going to deprive you of an enemy.” - Georgi Arbatov speaking about the fall of the Soviet Union.

[Kuntantee]

This is insanity. This general is not sane. Russia is a threat to USA's best interests? Sure. Is Russia an existential threat to USA? Not even a long shot.

- - - Updated - - -

You have a humiliated people, a super corrupt strong man who comes and tells them he will regain their honor. What's that remind you of? Germany 1932? But I guess Hitler wasn't corrupt.

There's even the parallel were Russia is helping ethnic Russians in other countries by intervening, Georgia, Ukraine, Crimea etc. Some say part of what caused WWII is that ethnic Germans in other countries were mistreated.

Except USA's involvement in WWII was purely motivated by imperialistic objectives, and not existential threats.

[zmp]

You just blew the minds of several shitposters by comparing Putin to Hitler. I hope the poor bastards will be okay.

More like a rolling eyes facial expression. The mind blowing part is being surprised if he even believe what he posts.

[May90]

More like a rolling eyes facial expression. The mind blowing part is being surprised if he even believe what he posts.

I agree: comparing Putin to Hitler is a disservice to Hitler.

[zmp]

I agree: comparing Putin to Hitler is a disservice to Hitler.

The two ain't even comparable to each other. Might as well compare Barack Obama to Rodrigo Duterte.

[May90]

The two ain't even comparable to each other. Might as well compare Barack Obama to Rodrigo Duterte.

Well, we can compare their certain traits. Hitler definitely was better than Putin at managing economy, as well as getting his country rid of his presence sooner.
Plus, he had funnier facial hair!

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Honestly, I find it a bit hard to believe that any modern nation is much of a threat to us.

Usually if they're saying this, they're more concerned that they could reduce our military and financial influence on the world stage. Not that we're actually under risk of being attacked and or subjugated which is what most Americans likely think.

We're a dying nation no matter what. Empires do not last. Personally I'm tired of trying to gather up the crumbling pieces and would rather begin to descale ourselves and evolve to meet the coming future. Yes, that means surrendering towards the idea that we're not in control of everything.

Terrifying prospect not to be in absolute control.

[Deleted]

“We are going to do a terrible thing to you, We are going to deprive you of an enemy.” - Georgi Arbatov speaking about the fall of the Soviet Union.

Thats actually pretty deep. Great quote.

OT: military personnel says something that might lead to more money sent in his direction.
Don't be surprised. Blame the ones that fall for it.
There isn't a single country that's connected to the global economy that is an existential threat to anyone because of... Well... Global economy.
As such, Russia is not a threat. It's all cool and all when you're blaming "outside forces" for a "drop in the economy" to your people.
Good luck trying to tell them that "their money in the bank won't be available anymore". No one wants to take the step

[muto]

Honestly, I find it a bit hard to believe that any modern nation is much of a threat to us.

Usually if they're saying this, they're more concerned that they could reduce our military and financial influence on the world stage. Not that we're actually under risk of being attacked and or subjugated which is what most Americans likely think.

We're a dying nation no matter what. Empires do not last. Personally I'm tired of trying to gather up the crumbling pieces and would rather begin to descale ourselves and evolve to meet the coming future. Yes, that means surrendering towards the idea that we're not in control of everything.

Terrifying prospect not to be in absolute control.

No we aren't.

[Skroe]

Interview on Fox: http://video.foxnews.com/v/507377740...#sp=show-clips

The question is: When does the fear-mongering stop? When does scaring people for higher budget becomes unethical?

Instead of everyone chilling, they just promote hysteria over and over and over again. I really do not get this.

The higher budget is coming as soon as Obama is gone.

The Defense Policy Bill passed in june by 85-13
http://www.defensenews.com/story/bre...veto/85867192/

The House passed the spending bill in June by 267-149
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/24...-spending-bill

The House Armed Services Commited passed the policy by 60-2
http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...2017/83637566/


The only opposition to defense spending increases there are is with the Obama Administration, which has taken the defense budget hostage since sequestration, insisting on $1 of new domestic program spending for $1 of defense spending increases. This demand will end with his Administration. Under Obama, the defense budget has shrunk by about 25% in real terms over what he himself agreed to as part of Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' 2010-2011 Budget Plan (which is one reason Gates deeply resents Obama, who he thinks is an arrogant son of a bitch who surrounds himself with sycophants). With defense spending needing increases in the 2020, we're likely to see a precipitious rise in coming years.

This budget starts that. How did they get around Obama's blockade? They put the defense spending increases in the Overseas Contingency Operations Budget (the 'War' Budget) that is seperate from the Pentagon budget, and is not subject to spending caps under the Budget Control Act of 2011, meaning that the OCO, instead of being a 12 month budget, will expire in April 2017, requiring the next President to ask for a supplemental. It's a brilliant strategy, but risks an Obama Veto (one he won't do, he would have done it already).

The fact is, civilian leadership, the Senate and the House in a Bipartisan Manner, and the Pentagon have been talking about "more" the last year, because the Age of Obama is all but over.

You want examples? I'll give examples.

How about keeping up the high pace of Attack sub building into the 2020s, after the ORP program begins, meaning the US produces 2 Virginias + 1 ORP per year (instead of 1 + 1).

How about accelerating F-35 production

How about restarting F-22 production?

How about building more (far more) B-21 Bombers than the 100 baselined?

How about accelerating carrier and destroyer production back to it's pre-Obama levels?

These things would have happened had Obama not lied to everyone as part of the Budget Control Act process. But now he's on his way out, and so is his stupid defense policies. Some of the above will happen. Some will happen in modified form. Some will not. And a lot more listed will happen. But there is precedent for all of this. Jimmy Carter similarly pulled back defense spending - banned F-16 exports to allies, canceled the B-1, stopped Nimitz class carrier production... that Reagan restarted and built most of the military we know.

The point is, the word on everyone's lips is "more". And much more is coming. Because the one man who is blocking it is packing up and leaving.

This may seem like a "AMERICA FUCK YEAH" post, but it is not. It is a FACT that the United States House, Senate and Executive ask the US military to operate a global strategy. It is a FACT chiefly the US military are responsible for the regional security apparatuses in Asia-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East. It is a FACT that the US military is asked to fight major wars on two fronts at the same time. It is a FACT that the US Military has, on top of it's huge conventional warfare requirement, a large asymmetric / counter terrorism / counter insurgency requirement.

These are all policies: the fact is the civilian leadership of this country asks the military to do a lot. Therefore it should arm it to do that job, rather than say "make due with 65% of what you need". The US right now operates a 15 carrier global strategy with 10 (11th is on the way). The US Navy says that in order to meet it's requests it would need around 375-450 warships. it has about 280 on the way to 309 in 3 years. The US Air Force has about 150 bombers, the requirement asks for 250.

The point is, it is EXTREMELY unfair, not to mention irresponsible, for the US civilian leadership to demand such diversity and number of missions for the military and not fund them to fill those missions. My best friend went to Afghanistan for two nine months tours just after he got married. He is part of Army Intelligence. And he saw a LOT of combat. But the only reason he saw two, NINE MONTH tours is because over ten years ago, the US Army was frozen at ~560,000 troops + national guide and reserves, rather than paying the addition $80 billion it would have cost to grow it to the 750,000 the country really needed for Afghanistan and and Iraq. Six month deployments turned into nine months, turned into twelve months turned into nine months. And now Obama wants to shrink the Army to 450,000 / 420,000 from 500,000. And now the Air Force has a pilot shortage.

The US will not be abandoning it's global strategy... probably not ever. It is incredibly beneficial to us. It is certainly within the national interest. It's extremely durable. The results speak for themselves. But the global strategy has to be properly resourced. Increasing defense spending isn't about new wars or looking for dragons to slay. It's about not dicking our service members with cheap talk about how much we support them, while simultaneously under resourcing them. You know what restarting F-22 production would cost? About a total of two and a half three days of Federal Spending. The US is extremely wealthy. Mindbogglingly so. We create excuses not to do things, because we don't want to do them.

Barack Obama has been no friend to the US Military because he doesn't want it to play as large a role in policy as it has the past forty years. But his reign his over, and Hillary Clinton, who was allied with Gates, is likely the next President, and will rebuild with Obama has allowed to atrophy some.