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

[callipygoustp]

My post above answers it.

Russia's danger is mostly in terms of policy.

With just 1000 NATO troops in each of the baltics they could take say, Estonia, by outnumbering our troops there 20 to 1 easily.

But could they hold the Baltics, especially once the US has marshalled a comprehensive response? Not in their life. They'd get chewed up and spit out. It wouldn't be a war. It would be pest control. In fact a chief goal of the US would be to not beat the Russian so badly that they would feel they need to use nuclear weapons (on troops in Europe, not cities or bases in the US and Europe) to save themselves. We would offer them offramp after off ramp after offramp to de-escalate.

Of course, Russia does have 1550 nuclear warheads, so it could always go to those after such a beating.

So that is what makes Russia an existential threat. They could "dare" the US to hit them back. But what happens when the US does and plants Russia's face into the dirt?

This guy gets it!

Edit:
I was digging for the instance of Putin calling Americans pussies and the only thing I found was :
https://www.ncscooper.com/vladamir-p...s-are-pussies/
Which, between the pictures and some of the content, I can't quite take seriously.

[May90]

The US has been the dominant military power by a LOT for several decades now and have stabilized the world economically with that power. This defines it as more of an empire than any before it in history.

That is what defines a major/dominant power, not an empire though. An empire is characterized primarily by a a number of conquered nations that are kept in the empire with no regards to their desire to be in it. Apparently this isn't the case in the US, where the last annexation happened over 120 years ago, and there is little tension between various states. The reason empires collapse - the conquered lands eventually gain their independence - doesn't exist in case of the US.

[Deleted]

This guy gets it!

And you're the guy that bites off substance?
It's ok.
Believing in something is very important for some people. To each his own

[callipygoustp]

And you're the guy that bites off substance?
It's ok.
Believing in something is very important for some people. To each his own

You're not alone in having a death grip on unreasonable beliefs. Carry on sir.

[Skroe]

I am of the belief Russia will never be a threat to much of anything.

Especially considering their lopsided demographics. Granted the whole damn planet has that problem but Russia has it to a paralyzing degree.

The threat from Russia is in what they accidentally do, not what they purposefully do.

Militarily, Russia's army basically broke itself in Donbass and it's air force is stretched to the breaking point in Ukraine. It can make impressive, extremely short term displays. But it can't sustain large scale operations whatsoever.

But contrast the US military supported 300,000 troops fighting two wars simultaneously, on the other side of the planet, for a decade straight, while simultaneously doing everything else it normally does.

That's what I'm saying. Russia could throw a hard punch. But they can't follow it with a real brawl after that. The US could.

Take for example, Russia puts a huge amount of military resources in the Russian Far East. It would take 2.5 weeks, by rail, to move 5000 Russian troops and their equipment from the RFE to Europe. You can bet that, should a war ever get hot, those trains and those rails would be among the first things our cruise missiles hit, thus stranding half of RUssia's armed forces defending their frontier, against China who might seek to take advantage of the situation. And it's not like China would let a Russian army walk into their territory to attack troops in South Korea or anything.

- - - Updated - - -

And you're the guy that bites off substance?
It's ok.
Believing in something is very important for some people. To each his own

You're the only one living in a fantasy world, but we've had literally dozens of threads on that exact issue.

[Aggrophobic]

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

He is not like Hitler but if the russian economy gets worse the situation in Russia might lead to politicians doing stupid stuff.
Thats not something thats unique to Russia though, that could happen in other parts of the world as well, just like it did in Germany in the 1930s.

[Deleted]

You're the only one living in a fantasy world, but we've had literally dozens of threads on that exact issue.

You made a point based on Russia attacking the EU and then using nukes.
You're literally playing Risk.

See Skroe... there is one thing you don't get. Your world? The one you're saying "it's coming"? It's still isn't here. So far, reality, is exactly the world I'm depicting it. A world based on trading.
You can keep talking about it but reality? Reality is backing me up.
But as I said to the poster above, sometimes people need to believe in something.

[khazmodan]

That is what defines a major/dominant power, not an empire though. An empire is characterized primarily by a a number of conquered nations that are kept in the empire with no regards to their desire to be in it. Apparently this isn't the case in the US, where the last annexation happened over 120 years ago, and there is little tension between various states. The reason empires collapse - the conquered lands eventually gain their independence - doesn't exist in case of the US.

you haven't talked to many Texans have you? seriously though, the collapse of empires is usually caused by internal cultural collapse. the conquered lands getting there independence is more a symptom of that collapse than the cause. The British Empire would be the one exception in them being weakened by World War 2 to the point that maintaining the empire with its ridiculous distances was no longer feasible.

[dholland662]

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.

Which is why Hillary wanting to expand NATO into Russian spheres is a dangerous idea. Even if she was "all there" which she doesnt seem to be

[Dejahthoris]

you haven't talked to many Texans have you?

Writing as a Texan - we want to be in the Union. The "Texas Secede" nonsense is...nonsense. Not a movement with a lot of people behind it.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

$60 billion a year on nuclear modernization is not a waste of money. It's basically America's Netflix subscription.

I want to know where you're sourcing your information from because I am never hearing this sort of language from any source I am personally familiar with. It almost sounds overly patriotic, not to mention, ignores domestic problems starting to bubble up within our society that could lead to a weakening on all fronts within the coming generations.

Mind enlightening me?

- - - Updated - - -

Writing as a Texan - we want to be in the Union. The "Texas Secede" nonsense is...nonsense. Not a movement with a lot of people behind it.

I think what most people want is more rights delegated back to the states.

A strong motion for leaving the Union would require a great deal of upset to occur before that could happen.

[khazmodan]

Writing as a Texan - we want to be in the Union. The "Texas Secede" nonsense is...nonsense. Not a movement with a lot of people behind it.

I think if you asked a lot of Mexicans that live in Texas whether they would like the state to secede and rejoin Mexico there would be a lot of yes votes.

[May90]

you haven't talked to many Texans have you? seriously though, the collapse of empires is usually caused by internal cultural collapse. the conquered lands getting there independence is more a symptom of that collapse than the cause. The British Empire would be the one exception in them being weakened by World War 2 to the point that maintaining the empire with its ridiculous distances was no longer feasible.

I think these elements are interconnected. The cultural collapse is partially caused exactly by the zealous desire to preserve the unnatural borders and connected to it paranoid decisions of the government, weakening the empire as a whole and eventually causing it to collapse.

Again, the US, apparently, doesn't have such problem. There is no state (including Texas ) that in the foreseeable future could even seriously consider going independent; unity in the US is very strong.

[Skroe]

You made a point based on Russia attacking the EU and then using nukes.
You're literally playing Risk.

See Skroe... there is one thing you don't get. Your world? The one you're saying "it's coming"? It's still isn't here. So far, reality, is exactly the world I'm depicting it. A world based on trading.
You can keep talking about it but reality? Reality is backing me up.
But as I said to the poster above, sometimes people need to believe in something.

This is legitimately how nuclear wars game theory works. It is EXACTLY like this... trying to find the threshold at which a nuclear power USES a nuclear weapon.

You are so fucking unbelievably delusional about pretty much everything you believe, you've officially arrived to the point of calling even a general description of the FOUNDATION of superpower security - the whole sword of Damocles over everyboy's head - not based in reality.

That's a joke man. That's just an utter and complete joke. I'm sorry, you don't get to do that. You can go on believing what you want, as you always do, but the question of "Under what circumstances will Russia use nuclear weapons?" and "under what circumstances will the US use nuclear weapons" has consumed defense policy makers for many decades.

What I'm describing is theories about conventional wars between superpowers short of nuclear wars, with nuclear weapons acting as a "ceiling" to the conflict going further. This has been theorized for decades. The question is, is it a ceiling? Would it really be a ceiling at all if Russia feels so beat it feels it has no choice but to use them, even in a limited fashion?

This is especially relevant when Russia's own military doctrine describes using small tactical nuclear weapons in an opening salvo against NATO.


Source: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...kes-nato-15281

A NATO counter-offensive would be bloody and fraught with escalatory risk—but it’s one of the probable outcomes of a Russian invasion. In that eventuality, Russian conventional forces—of which only a portion are well trained and well equipped—would likely be severely damaged or even destroyed. Moreover, if NATO forces hit targets inside Russia or crossed over into Russian territory, Moscow might conclude that there is a danger to the existence of the state. After all, Moscow has expressed concerns in the past that regime change by the West is an all too real danger. In that situation, Russia might counter advancing NATO forces with its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons.

The Russian tactical nuclear arsenal is not nearly as large as the Soviet arsenal had once been, but concrete numbers are hard to come by. The Soviet Union was thought to have possessed between 15,000 and 25,000 tactical nuclear weapons of all types ranging from suitcase-sized containers and nuclear mines to short-range aircraft delivered missiles, nuclear gravity bombs and artillery shells—as well as short-, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missile warheads.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...-limited-16394

In 1983, amidst heightened tensions with the Soviets, the administration put the U.S. war-plan to the test in a war game called Proud Prophet.

According to author and Defense Department advisor Paul Bracken, it was unlike any other war game in Cold War history. Whereas most other war games cast staffers from think tanks, former administration officials and pentagon employees in the roles of U.S. president or Soviet commanders, Proud Prophet involved actual U.S. national-security decision-makers, including Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and the chairman of the joint chiefs.

Furthermore, “to make it as realistic as possible, actual top-secret U.S. war plans were incorporated into the game … [making it] the most realistic exercise involving nuclear weapons ever played by the U.S. government during the Cold War,” Bracken wrote.

The simulation played out around the clock for two weeks, with “hundreds of military officers participating in Washington as well as communicating over top-secret links with all the major U.S. military commands around the world.”

The result? “Many of the strategic concepts proposed to deal with the Soviet Union were revealed to be either irresponsible or totally incompatible with current U.S. capabilities and immediately thrown out.”

Chief among them were the use of limited de-escalatory nuclear strikes. Like in our hypothetical scenario above, “the idea behind these was that once the Soviet leaders saw that the West would go nuclear they would come to their senses and accept a ceasefire … they were supposed to limit a nuclear war.”

But that isn’t how it played out.

“The Soviet Union team interpreted the nuclear strikes as an attack on their nation, their way of life and their honor,” Bracken wrote. “So they responded with an enormous nuclear salvo at the United States.

“The United States retaliated in kind. The result was a catastrophe that made all the wars of the past five hundred years pale in comparison. A half-billion human beings were killed in the initial exchanges and at least that many more would have died from radiation and starvation. NATO was gone. So was a good part of Europe, the United States and the Soviet Union. Major parts of the Northern Hemisphere would be uninhabitable for decades.”

So as usual, you know nothing about what you speak of.

[callipygoustp]

Again, the US, apparently, doesn't have such problem. There is no state (including Texas ) that in the foreseeable future could even seriously consider going independent; unity in the US is very strong.

Yeah, I've been pushing #Calexit2016 for months but its not catching on. California seems to be content on being part of the union.

[Reeve]

@Skroe I get the whole thing with the Ford Supercarrier, the F-35, the F-22, and the B-21. But why the ORP? Aren't the Ohio subs pretty much doing fine as it is?

[khazmodan]

Yeah, I've been pushing #Calexit2016 for months but its not catching on. California seems to be content on being part of the union.

Just the thought of California seceding makes me shiver with delight but alas it will never be... they are like the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy ship that was full of useless profession people.

[Skroe]

I want to know where you're sourcing your information from because I am never hearing this sort of language from any source I am personally familiar with. It almost sounds overly patriotic, not to mention, ignores domestic problems starting to bubble up within our society that could lead to a weakening on all fronts within the coming generations.

Mind enlightening me?

Absolutely. Here's my sourcing.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total

Federal Gross Spending $4.0 trillion
Intergovernmental $-0.7 trillion
State Direct Spending $1.6 trillion
Local Direct Spending $1.8 trillion
Total Spending $6.7 trillion

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/classic



The most relevant coloumn given the US has 3 levels of government, is the right most. Pensions = $1.294 trillion, Healthcare = $1.442 trillion, Education = $1.0 trillion, defense = $829 billion.


Let's blow up defense's section now.

Oh look, defense, the actual pentagon budget is $604 billion with $178 billion in Veterans spending.

And now let's look at Pentagon costs - Atomic Energy related (nuclear weapons complex) is $19.2 billion. But that doesn';t include facilities, operaitons (subs at sea annual costscosts), procurement (building the Ohio replacement program subs).

Here is the Congressional Budget Office resport on nuclear forces spending
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44968
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...learForces.pdf

What Will the Administration’s Plans forNuclear Forces Cost Over the Next Decade?
Between 2014 and 2023, the costs of the Administration’s plans for nuclear forces will total $355 billion, in CBO’s estimation. Of that total, $296 billion represents CBO’s projection of the amounts budgeted for strategic and tactical nuclear delivery systems ($136 billion over 10 years); for nuclear weapons, DOE’s nuclear weapons enterprise, and SSBN nuclear reactors ($105 billion over 10 years); and for nuclear command, control, communications, and early-warning systems ($56 billion over 10 years). The remaining $59 billion of the total represents CBO’s estimate of the additional costs that will ensue over the coming decade, beyond the budgeted amounts, if the nuclear programs experience cost growth at the same average rate that similar programs have experienced in the past.

In addition to operating and maintaining current systems, DoD and DOE plan to modernize or replace many weapons and delivery systems over the next few decades. Planned nuclear modernization programs include new SSBNs, long-range bombers, ICBMs, and cruise missiles, as well as major life-extending refurbishments of current ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and nearly all nuclear warheads. Of the $241 billion budgeted for nuclear delivery systems and weapons over the next 10 years (combining the $136 billion and $105 billion figures in the preceding paragraph), CBO estimates that $152 billion would be spent to field and maintain the current generation of systems and $89 billion would be spent to modernize or replace those systems. Because
most of those modernization efforts are just beginning, annual costs for nuclear forces are expected to increase.

From 2021 to 2023, nuclear costs would average about $29 billion annually, roughly 60 percent higher than the $18 billion requested for 2014. Annual costs are likely to continue to grow after 2023 as production begins on replacement systems.


CBO formulated its estimates using a three-step
approach: identify all budget line items relevant to
nuclear forces; extrapolate from budget documentation,
as necessary, to estimate budgets over the 10-year period
(most of DoD’s programs have five-year estimates); and
estimate cost growth beyond budgeted amounts on the
basis of historical growth in similar programs. CBO estimated
cost growth for various types of activities on the
basis of historical average growth for similar activities
because predicting cost growth for individual programs is
particularly complicated. CBO used only the unclassified
portion of DoD’s budget to formulate its estimates.1
The costs of other nuclear-related activities will total
$215 billion from 2014 to 2023, CBO estimates, with
$74 billion in legacy nuclear costs, $34 billion for threat
reduction and arms control, and $107 billion for
defenses.

[Reeve]

The Russians? A country more likely to break up in the next 20 years than any other?

I'd say that if Britain Brexits, the UK is more likely to break up than Russia.

[callipygoustp]

Just the thought of California seceding makes me shiver with delight but alas it will never be... they are like the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy ship that was full of useless profession people.

Hey man, getting my phone buffed everyday is not useless!

Also, considering we still have people looking for jobs: I'd love to hire someone to hit snooze the first two times my alarm goes off in the morning. Such a nuisance to do it myself.