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
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
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
Russia has hypersonic nukes, usa doesn’t. It doesn’t matter how much you spend, if you get hypersonic nuked you are dead.
Artillery, antiair, icbms, nukes, drones, submarines