Russia Invades Ukraine. Volume 4

[AlexIT]

HM-2 said:

IIRC, the Kh-31 is an anti-radiation/anti-ship missile rather than anything more "normal" as a ground attach munition.

it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-31

[TGCOTF-dewey]

TEKNOPUG said:

dukeboy749r said:

We may no longer be a very big military power...

Depends who you compare us to....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

France do well to spend essentially the same as Germany and Saudi and have a nuclear at sea deterrent + associated ssn fleet.

[aeropilot]

TGCOTF-dewey said:

TEKNOPUG said:

dukeboy749r said:

We may no longer be a very big military power...

Depends who you compare us to....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

France do well to spend essentially the same as Germany and Saudi and have a nuclear at sea deterrent + associated ssn fleet.

Perhaps France still do what the UK used to do, and their nuclear deterrent is paid for direct by Govt, and so does not show up in the defense budget...?

[Bodo]

aeropilot said:

TGCOTF-dewey said:

TEKNOPUG said:

dukeboy749r said:

We may no longer be a very big military power...

Depends who you compare us to....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

France do well to spend essentially the same as Germany and Saudi and have a nuclear at sea deterrent + associated ssn fleet.

Perhaps France still do what the UK used to do, and their nuclear deterrent is paid for direct by Govt, and so does not show up in the defense budget...?

In any case, the statistic doesn't factor in the bang per buck. I need to leave now

[TGCOTF-dewey]

aeropilot said:

Perhaps France still do what the UK used to do, and their nuclear deterrent is paid for direct by Govt, and so does not show up in the defense budget...?

Good point.

[trickywoo]

Surprised not to see Pakistan listed especially given their neighbour is a big spender.

[isaldiri]

trickywoo said:

Surprised not to see Pakistan listed especially given their neighbour is a big spender.

Their economy is rather a lot smaller than their neighbour so as a % of gdp they are iirc spending a lot more but in absolute numbers it's a good bit less.

[Digga]

You look at that pie chart and wonder what the world economy could look like if Russia were neutralised as a military and nuclear threat. A very significant chunk of global wealth and GDP is devoted to managing this threat.

[isaldiri]

Digga said:

You look at that pie chart and wonder what the world economy could look like if Russia were neutralised as a military and nuclear threat. A very significant chunk of global wealth and GDP is devoted to managing this threat.

Think you can be reasonably certain that the US and China will quite cheerily spend at least the same again without russia given the presence of each other....

[John145]

Digga said:

You look at that pie chart and wonder what the world economy could look like if Russia were neutralised as a military and nuclear threat. A very significant chunk of global wealth and GDP is devoted to managing this threat.

Humans are always going to be human, until we transcend into a new species which isn’t going to happen by any natural means.

Power vacuums will be filled, opportunists will rise, new threats will come but they’ll be more unpredictable as by their very nature they’re new and unknowable.

The best way to stabilise is with a big stick. The only reason Russia hasn’t pushed into other European nations is because of NATO and Putin realising Ukraine was on that trajectory is probably why he invaded in the first place.

[Digga]

isaldiri said:

Digga said:

You look at that pie chart and wonder what the world economy could look like if Russia were neutralised as a military and nuclear threat. A very significant chunk of global wealth and GDP is devoted to managing this threat.

Think you can be reasonably certain that the US and China will quite cheerily spend at least the same again without russia given the presence of each other....

It's an interesting scenario to ponder; a world with a de-fanged Russia. Would it necessarily pass the mantle of 'enemy' to China?

[bmwmike]

isaldiri said:

Digga said:

You look at that pie chart and wonder what the world economy could look like if Russia were neutralised as a military and nuclear threat. A very significant chunk of global wealth and GDP is devoted to managing this threat.

Think you can be reasonably certain that the US and China will quite cheerily spend at least the same again without russia given the presence of each other....

Yes, and whilst i'm glad they do spend the money, the US will always find a reason to spend the money as its a huge industry for them with lots of embedded and vested interests, domestically and overseas. China, Russia, terrorists, protecting interests of our allies and partners, etc.

[Bannock]

Apologies if re-post

[TheJimi]

Digga said:

isaldiri said:

Digga said:

You look at that pie chart and wonder what the world economy could look like if Russia were neutralised as a military and nuclear threat. A very significant chunk of global wealth and GDP is devoted to managing this threat.

Think you can be reasonably certain that the US and China will quite cheerily spend at least the same again without russia given the presence of each other....

It's an interesting scenario to ponder; a world with a de-fanged Russia. Would it necessarily pass the mantle of 'enemy' to China?

Instinctively, I think the mantle passed to China quite a while ago. Perhaps "enemy" is too strong a word, currently, but if you asked the upper echelons of US defence and government who the biggest threat is, they'd say "China".

[minimoog]

Bannock said:

Apologies if re-post

[paua]

TheJimi said:

Digga said:

isaldiri said:

Digga said:

You look at that pie chart and wonder what the world economy could look like if Russia were neutralised as a military and nuclear threat. A very significant chunk of global wealth and GDP is devoted to managing this threat.

Think you can be reasonably certain that the US and China will quite cheerily spend at least the same again without russia given the presence of each other....

It's an interesting scenario to ponder; a world with a de-fanged Russia. Would it necessarily pass the mantle of 'enemy' to China?

Instinctively, I think the mantle passed to China quite a while ago. Perhaps "enemy" is too strong a word, currently, but if you asked the upper echelons of US defence and government who the biggest threat is, they'd say "China".

Orwell did suggest the 3 spheres of enemies - Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia.
Eurasia is weakening, Eastasia is rising. When it's Oceania's turn, I'm moving to Wellington.

[Digga]

paua said:

TheJimi said:

Digga said:

isaldiri said:

Digga said:

You look at that pie chart and wonder what the world economy could look like if Russia were neutralised as a military and nuclear threat. A very significant chunk of global wealth and GDP is devoted to managing this threat.

Think you can be reasonably certain that the US and China will quite cheerily spend at least the same again without russia given the presence of each other....

It's an interesting scenario to ponder; a world with a de-fanged Russia. Would it necessarily pass the mantle of 'enemy' to China?

Instinctively, I think the mantle passed to China quite a while ago. Perhaps "enemy" is too strong a word, currently, but if you asked the upper echelons of US defence and government who the biggest threat is, they'd say "China".

Orwell did suggest the 3 spheres of enemies - Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia.
Eurasia is weakening, Eastasia is rising. When it's Oceania's turn, I'm moving to Wellington.

I'm calling custard or rice pudding.

[Byker28i]

TheJimi said:

Digga said:

isaldiri said:

Digga said:

You look at that pie chart and wonder what the world economy could look like if Russia were neutralised as a military and nuclear threat. A very significant chunk of global wealth and GDP is devoted to managing this threat.

Think you can be reasonably certain that the US and China will quite cheerily spend at least the same again without russia given the presence of each other....

It's an interesting scenario to ponder; a world with a de-fanged Russia. Would it necessarily pass the mantle of 'enemy' to China?

Instinctively, I think the mantle passed to China quite a while ago. Perhaps "enemy" is too strong a word, currently, but if you asked the upper echelons of US defence and government who the biggest threat is, they'd say "China".

China have been slowly buying up US businesses (and presidents ) for a while
https://www.madeinamerica.com/chinese-investors/

There's claims of $145bn invested, especially in government-connected private sectors firms
https://www.citizen.org/article/chinese-investment...

The enemy within...

[FourWheelDrift]

TheJimi said:

Instinctively, I think the mantle passed to China quite a while ago. Perhaps "enemy" is too strong a word, currently, but if you asked the upper echelons of US defence and government who the biggest threat is, they'd say "China".

As Trump would say "Chyynaa"

Operation Red Flag these days is conducted based on the threat of China - https://youtu.be/LO5YiBTTNW4?t=118

[isaldiri]

TheJimi said:

Digga said:

isaldiri said:

Digga said:

You look at that pie chart and wonder what the world economy could look like if Russia were neutralised as a military and nuclear threat. A very significant chunk of global wealth and GDP is devoted to managing this threat.

Think you can be reasonably certain that the US and China will quite cheerily spend at least the same again without russia given the presence of each other....

It's an interesting scenario to ponder; a world with a de-fanged Russia. Would it necessarily pass the mantle of 'enemy' to China?

Instinctively, I think the mantle passed to China quite a while ago. Perhaps "enemy" is too strong a word, currently, but if you asked the upper echelons of US defence and government who the biggest threat is, they'd say "China".

^ pretty much this. China has been the primary strategic adversary of the US for a while, far more than Russia due to their (increasing) economic clout. China as well has been very keen to try to break up the hegemony that the US currently enjoys so.... that certainly isn't going to happen without heaps of military expenditure which of course the US is likewise rather incentivised to try to maintain.