US Military Power

[TheGreatBlaze]

The United States military defense budget is $711 billion annually. The next closest country is China at $136 billion. In fact, the US has a larger military budget than the next 10 most powerful military's combined.

See this?

http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/53557f626bb3f7f261bfeb96-800-/uss-eisenhower-4.jpg

It's called an Air Craft Carrier. The USA has 19 of them. The rest of the world has 10 combined.

http://www.businessinsider.com/11-most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world-2014-4

See this?

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/53457a296bb3f7bd2d1488b6/lorenz%20force%20back.gif

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/53457addeab8ea1420657955/rail%20gun%20exploding%20out%20barrel.gif

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/53457be9eab8ea202c657952/rail%20gun%20wall.gif

http://www.businessinsider.com/navys-new-weapon-explained-in-5-gifs-2014-4

It's a Rail Gun, future warfare being developed by the Navy.

There are 8,400 attack helicopters in the world. The U.S. has 6,400 of them.

The M1 Abrams tank has seen more combat than just about any other tank on the battlefield today. It has never been knocked out by enemy fire. (Completely killed). Ever.

China has less than 500 Type 99 tanks, that have just been developed, and are not even close to being as good as the Abrams. We have 8,700 Abrams.

We own all the satellites that guide GPS systems. We have all the advanced stealth technology. The latest sensors? U.S. The latest information systems? U.S. An Abrams tank can see a target, the tank commander can instantly send that target to every tank in his company.

Now you have 14 tanks looking for you. Oh, and it also uploads to every Apache helicopter in the area. Every indirect and direct fire system in the area knows what you are and where you are. Your survivability just dropped to 0. Instantly.

The US is the sole country in the world that has the capability to project force across the globe on a large scale. The combined military air- and sealift capability of the rest of the world would be insufficient to even get a foothold on the continental United States. The amphibious assault capability of the world's militaries, excluding the United States, is simply too small.

The United States has engaged in every type of ground warfare in the last 20 years. From mountains to jungles, and from desert to urban, we have the some of the most experienced warriors in the world. No other country comes close to the amount of combat veterans that we have.

And this is just the tip of the iceburg! I truly believe that the rest of the world really has no clue just how powerful the U.S. military is. We must begin to question the disparity of lethality between the U.S. and the rest of the world.


#1 baby :rockon: :bowdown:

[TheGreatBlaze]

Check the $tats

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/4A8078449E794DFB8CC33ADD00A6F1AF.gif


:pimp:

[Bandito]

It's funny because basically nobody can beat the US by themselves and have to as for help from other countries...while the US is basically powerful enough to kill all of them and just chill while doing so.

[fiddy]

confirmed u.s.=biggest aggressor

[OncePerMonth]

Time to invest some of that budget into the economy.

[FatComputerNerd]

'murica! :rockon:

[SexSymbol]

america's budget is inflated as **** due to the fact that you have bases all around the world.
against a big army that would be pointless and USA would get dominated, say Russia + China, or even any single one of those two.

[DeuceWallaces]

The amount of military spending is out of control. Republicans talk about reducing the budget all the time but they won't touch this shit.

Cut that in half and put a ton into schools, urban blight, the economy, our civil infrastructure, etc.

[SexSymbol]

anybody who thinks such a budget is justifiable is a complete idiot, give 600 million of that to the struggling people and this country would thrive again

[LakersDaBEst]

And al that money for?

[MadeFromDust]

Yeah but how much of that is officer salary and enlisted "benefits" which the commies don't worry about because their forces are slaves?

[duskovujosevic]

Insane ammounts of money.

[CelticBaller]

And people think there is any threat to the us :oldlol:

Fk outta here

[sweggeh]

This is pretty sad. People homeless on American streets but you people are proud of this. Shows me that American mentality clear as day. Your government really has y'all hooked line and sinker. :facepalm

[Nick Young]

we da bess:bowdown:

[Nick Young]

Sometimes I wish WWIII would begin just so we have a chance to kick China and Russias ass in pure combat.

So much freedom in the air right now:rockon:

[CelticBaller]

This is pretty sad. People homeless on American streets but you people are proud of this. Shows me that American mentality clear as day. Your government really has y'all hooked line and sinker. :facepalm
Yeah help all the crack addicts instead of building the country's defense :applause:

[KobesFinger]

This is pretty sad. People homeless on American streets but you people are proud of this. Shows me that American mentality clear as day. Your government really has y'all hooked line and sinker. :facepalm

http://s.quickmeme.com/img/fb/fb3a22f5a1cd2a46cd8eb298d666cdf7a11d8937e8e9adff8e 937eb1922e553a.jpg

Its not even like if the US cut their military spending and allocated it elsewhere that it'd make a difference to their strength but it could make a world of difference for those less well off

[fiddy]

Sometimes I wish WWIII would begin just so we have a chance to kick China and Russias ass in pure combat.

So much freedom in the air right now:rockon:
inb4 nick young starts to bitch how bad nuclear fallout is

[aj1987]

This is pretty sad. People homeless on American streets but you people are proud of this. Shows me that American mentality clear as day. Your government really has y'all hooked line and sinker. :facepalm
Yeah, because countries like China and Russia are doing so much better while spending a 5th of what America is spending. :facepalm

Oh, and apparently the money spent on building and developing weapons do not generate jobs.

[magic chiongson]

nukes pretty much cancels everything out, that's why the world should ban nukes :D

[NumberSix]

Yeah, because countries like China and Russia are doing so much better while spending a 5th of what America is spending. :facepalm

Oh, and apparently the money spent on building and developing weapons do not generate jobs.
China doesn't actually spend that little. Their money is rigged to be artificially be worth a lower conversion rate.

Think of it like this.....


Imagine the USA rigs the market so it's money retains it's same value inside the USA, but it's conversion rate is rigged to be worth much less. Say you do trade with Canada and when Canada pays for what they buy and you convert $1 Canadian to like $8 American.

China makes and manufactures everything. They rig it so that they convert the outside money they make into WAY more Chinese money than it rightfully should be.

We pretend they spend the equivalent of $136 billion American, but that's only going buy the rigged conversion rate. They're really spending a lot more than that.

[oh the horror]

Yeah help all the crack addicts instead of building the country's defense :applause:



Defense from who? The United States has been on offense now for awhile.

[ThePhantomCreep]

The amount of military spending is out of control. Republicans talk about reducing the budget all the time but they won't touch this shit.

Cut that in half and put a ton into schools, urban blight, the economy, our civil infrastructure, etc.

Republicans would much rather cut into social programs that eat up a fraction of budget in comparison. While slashing taxes for the wealthy of course.

Their priorities = not straight

[Dresta]

Defense from who? The United States has been on offense now for awhile.
Sometimes offense is the best form of defense tho...

[CelticBaller]

Defense from who?
Yes

[lakerfreak]

Well the question I would ask is, where does that money go to?

Is it just weapons? Or is it also military benefits (Post 9/11 GI Bill, etc...).

I'm an admissions advisor and I know for a fact that military personnel who come in and apply, are paid 100% tuition for each of their courses, AND they get $2,000 per month for living expenses.

If that is the reason that 711 billion is the number, then that makes total sense.

I'm Egyptian and I know that the Egyptian soldiers don't receive any kind of benefits lol. I would imagine that's the similar case for other countries.

[eliteballer]

We're ahead now but Russia and especially China are increasing their budgets exponentially.

[highwhey]

Rome fell.

You can cite all the tanks, weapon systems, helicopters, etc but the truth of the matter is there are quite a few countries who hate us. A combined attack from Russia and China would cripple us. We haven't fought(only formed tension) a real superpower country in over half a century. We've basically ducked the real players. I.e. lebron playing in the east.

[Godzuki]

we would not be nearly as powerful or influential as we are today without emphasis on our military. We have more than double the GDP of everyone too but we'd be a form of Japan right now without our military strength...who are being bullied by China. Military emphasis is what made us such a strong country today where we get to dictate and have sovereignty.

that is not to say we shouldn't cut down some on the military budget but every time we think about doing this there are world events that make us put emphasis back in it. Like Clinton downsized our military, then 9/11 happened, and then we regretted it where Republicans were saying 'i told u so~'. Now we're basically going into another Cold War....wtih muslim fundamentalists still a major problem.

Hagel did cut down on a lot of troops recently which was smart IMO since we're not sending ground troops anywhere anytime soon i figure. We have enough weapons to do stuff without sending in ground troops again, or i'd assume if we did they'd be small deployments or something like that but not Iraq/Afghanistan deployments. can't see that happening anytime soon.

[Godzuki]

oh and all of the foreign haters are always mad taking shots at us because we get to dictate, which is another huge plus :pimp:

there are inequiities throughout like, deal with it bitches :cheers:

[ThePhantomCreep]

Rome fell.

You can cite all the tanks, weapon systems, helicopters, etc but the truth of the matter is there are quite a few countries who hate us. A combined attack from Russia and China would cripple us. We haven't fought(only formed tension) a real superpower country in over half a century. We've basically ducked the real players. I.e. lebron playing in the east.

What real players have we ducked? The only superpower in the postwar era besides the US was the Soviet Union and they're ancient history now. Putin is a joke and presides over a country with a GDP that barely matches California. Gorbachev laughs at the power he wields. China is a future superpower, but they're not there yet. I doubt they're itching to get into it with us anyway.

[KingBeasley08]

The price of freedom is high but it's a price the USA is willing to pay

http://i.imgur.com/v31qI5Q.jpg

[bladefd]

The belly of the mighty beast fueled by endless amounts of blank checks, huh?

I believe it is more than even $711 billion. If you add the upkeep required for the nukes and other top-secret programs & research, I have no doubt it would be close a trillion dollars yearly. Easily.

I remember reading on Business insider once that close to $150 billion of that money disappears into thin air once the funding hits the military. Nobody knows where it goes or what happens to it. It could be going to some top-secret programs or it could very well be corruption. :confusedshrug:

[Derka]

Pretty meaningless in a world where large-scale conventional warfare is falling by the wayside in favor of small-scale insurgencies and terrorism.

[TheGreatBlaze]

http://i1374.photobucket.com/albums/ag439/auntymabele/america-meme_zpsd937d37b.jpg (http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/auntymabele/media/america-meme_zpsd937d37b.jpg.html)

[JohnFreeman]

Americans are so scared of something happening.

[IcanzIIravor]

america's budget is inflated as **** due to the fact that you have bases all around the world.
against a big army that would be pointless and USA would get dominated, say Russia + China, or even any single one of those two.

That is incorrect. We would destroy in massed army from any nation on this planet. The equalizer is asymmetric warfare and the fact that none of the major powers wants total warfare to return as the norm.

[Akrazotile]

The amount of military spending is out of control. Republicans talk about reducing the budget all the time but they won't touch this shit.

Cut that in half and put a ton into schools, urban blight, the economy, our civil infrastructure, etc.

Umm except learning doesnt really cost that much, thats just used as an excuse for people and groups of people who dont take it seriously. From captive Tibetan monks to nazi-era jewish ghettos to immigrant azn families in America, people who strive to learn can find ways even without a lot of resources. All the money in the world makes no difference if education isnt culturally prioritized.

People can also clean up litter and grafiti and landscaping in their communities without billion dollar budgets. Youre making excuses for people by shifting blame to fit a narrative - small innocent guy struggling nobley to make it by as best he can vs evil greedy rich corporate fatcat holding him down and laughing. Who is their brother's keeper? People have to take initiative on their own. You think it costs trillions to clean up blight? No, it takes effort and an actual desire to do it. How many people here have ever volunteered to go clean stuff or to tutor kids, excluding situations where community service was required as part of an education credit or court sentencing? Probably hardly any. Again, youre just using money as your catch-all "attack the man!" slogan of rebelliousness. Its a shallow and at this point very tired and played out platitude and frankly youre just too old to be "aging hippie liberal douche" (to borrow a southpark turn of phrase.)


What does cost real coin though is paying people to go live in a barracks and train for combat and then risk their lives for at least five years afterward. Paying engineers to make sure our capabilities can match the potential threats of any rogue and less civilized country that gets the cachamaime idea to try and step. We ****ing defend the free world, countries like switzerland and japan and ireland dont have to have meaningful armies BECAUSE WE DO. If it werent for the US, radical governments like nazis, shiites, chinese communists etc would have already overrun the rest of the world basically. And you people try to shit on old-style southern folk whose lifestyle includes guns and jesus, the very people who PROVIDE THE MUSCLE to protect the ****ing civilized world.

If you wanna debate the exact figures of how much we should be spending on the military and whether its adjusted appropriately or not thats fine, but the snide oversimplification of what's at stake is honestly just the ignorant cry for atention of a child.

[Godzuki]

Umm except learning doesnt really cost that much, thats just used as an excuse for people and groups of people who dont take it seriously. From captive Tibetan monks to nazi-era jewish ghettos to immigrant azn families in America, people who strive to learn can find ways even without a lot of resources. All the money in the world makes no difference if education isnt culturally prioritized.

People can also clean up litter and grafiti and landscaping in their communities without billion dollar budgets. Youre making excuses for people by shifting blame to fit a narrative - small innocent guy struggling nobley to make it by as best he can vs evil greedy rich corporate fatcat holding him down and laughing. Who is their brother's keeper? People have to take initiative on their own. You think it costs trillions to clean up blight? No, it takes effort and an actual desire to do it. How many people here have ever volunteered to go clean stuff or to tutor kids, excluding situations where community service was required as part of an education credit or court sentencing? Probably hardly any. Again, youre just using money as your catch-all "attack the man!" slogan of rebelliousness. Its a shallow and at this point very tired and played out platitude and frankly youre just too old to be "aging hippie liberal douche" (to borrow a southpark turn of phrase.)


What does cost real coin though is paying people to go live in a barracks and train for combat and then risk their lives for at least five years afterward. Paying engineers to make sure our capabilities can match the potential threats of any rogue and less civilized country that gets the cachamaime idea to try and step. We ****ing defend the free world, countries like switzerland and japan and ireland dont have to have meaningful armies BECAUSE WE DO. If it werent for the US, radical governments like nazis, shiites, chinese communists etc would have already overrun the rest of the world basically. And you people try to shit on old-style southern folk whose lifestyle includes guns and jesus, the very people who PROVIDE THE MUSCLE to protect the ****ing civilized world.

If you wanna debate the exact figures of how much we should be spending on the military and whether its adjusted appropriately or not thats fine, but the snide oversimplification of what's at stake is honestly just the ignorant cry for atention of a child.


i'm alright with most of what u said other than shit'ing on old conservative southern folk into their guns and Jesus. i'm fine with guns these days but the Jesus bit is out of control with some of them. them pushing us into a Christian nation literally is some wack shit, as crazy shit as any candidates run on....no different than countries that are fundamentalist muslim. Separation between church and state is what separates us from irrational, impractical decision making stupidity as a nation based on religious dogma.

the government is just too much of a overly complex bandaid on top of bandaid bloated machine with so much money having been poured into it with so many avenues for abuse and waste, where they really need to tear it all down and start all over. they say there is like a 3-5% margin for error when it comes to tax dollars being wasted, and disappearing in the system which is normal every year. thats huge given how much money the government gets from taxes.

[dude77]

bow down bitches ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R5A0pg4oN8

[fiddy]

bow down bitches ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R5A0pg4oN8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vsFJN64Gjo

[dr.hee]

Pretty meaningless in a world where large-scale conventional warfare is falling by the wayside in favor of small-scale insurgencies and terrorism.

Stick to stuff patriotic peasants can actually grasp, please. Repped nonetheless.

[Godzuki]

Russia $730 billion into their military over the next 10 years

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/08/06/russia-military-expansion-sciutto-orig-mg.cnn.html

we really have to break their economy somehow

[SexSymbol]

What real players have we ducked? The only superpower in the postwar era besides the US was the Soviet Union and they're ancient history now. Putin is a joke and presides over a country with a GDP that barely matches California. Gorbachev laughs at the power he wields. China is a future superpower, but they're not there yet. I doubt they're itching to get into it with us anyway.
You're talking complete shit.

Putin is a joke? you do realize that he made USA Russia's bitch in numerous situations now?

China could challenge USA or Russia anyday in a full scale war.
Any of those three would be an equal opponent to the other

[Godzuki]

You're talking complete shit.

Putin is a joke? you do realize that he made USA Russia's bitch in numerous situations now?

China could challenge USA or Russia anyday in a full scale war.
Any of those three would be an equal opponent to the other


lol China would get destroyed but they're all about money/economy and so invested in us they'd never really try to hurt us i'd think because they'd be hurting themselves.

yeah Putin has made us his bitch but thats because we're real soft...and the EU are way softer. Lets just say if NKorea, Russia, or some country like that had our power they'd be throwing it around bullying the fukk out of people way more than we do.

either way we'd destroy everyone with our tech, we wouldn't even need troops to do it. pretty soon we'll probably have anti nuke missile programs setup like Iron Dome'sh but capable of stopping nukes i bet. i can definitely see that coming sooner or later.

everyone is pretty weak compared to us, like half our mililtary/economy currently. we just don't abuse it like most countries would. hate all u want but its true :pimp:

[Nick Young]

We da bess.

Would love to beat Russia+China in a two on one handicap match, super cena style. Bring it on:rockon:

[SexSymbol]

lol China would get destroyed but they're all about money/economy and so invested in us they'd never really try to hurt us i'd think because they'd be hurting themselves.

yeah Putin has made us his bitch but thats because we're real soft...and the EU are way softer. Lets just say if NKorea, Russia, or some country like that had our power they'd be throwing it around bullying the fukk out of people way more than we do.

either way we'd destroy everyone with our tech, we wouldn't even need troops to do it. pretty soon we'll probably have anti nuke missile programs setup like Iron Dome'sh but capable of stopping nukes i bet. i can definitely see that coming sooner or later.

everyone is pretty weak compared to us, like half our mililtary/economy currently. we just don't abuse it like most countries would. hate all u want but its true :pimp:

You don't seem to have any concept about the war.
USA would lack the sheer number of soldiers that China has to compete with them.

Russia has the toughest mofos round the world.

Technology lol.
What would help you so bad? Unmaned drones that Russia's superb AA system would pick like flies?
Russia has better air technology than USA, check the tests.

Besides, USA's tactics are terrible, you have your army spred out around the world with small bases that would fall in a day when challenged by a bigger military force.

Soldiers win wars, Germany had better technology, at least on the ground, than any other country in WW2 and they lost due to the infinite amount of soldiers that Russia could throw at them

USA doesn't abuse it's military? Then what the **** it has been doing in the middle east for 10-15 years now?
How many years have USA gone without a war since the declaration of independence? Like 4?

[n00bie]

lol China would get destroyed but they're all about money/economy and so invested in us they'd never really try to hurt us i'd think because they'd be hurting themselves.


And you think we're not about money / economy?

What do you think would happen if we attacked China? Who's going to manufacture all our products? Can you imagine if suddenly we have to manufacture everything ourselves? The prices would sky rocket. :rolleyes:

[KevinNYC]

Rome fell.

You can cite all the tanks, weapon systems, helicopters, etc but the truth of the matter is there are quite a few countries who hate us. A combined attack from Russia and China would cripple us.

How exactly would that work?

A. Why would China and Russia work together?
B. Are China and Russia invading the US? Because while they have large armies, they would have to deliver them to US shores and getting them across the ocean would make them very vulnerable.
C. If a war like that occurred, it would take an immense amount of restraint to stay conventional and not go nuclear.

Also Rome lasted what 500 years? and then another 1,000 years?

[Godzuki]

And you think we're not about money / economy?

What do you think would happen if we attacked China? Who's going to manufacture all our products? Can you imagine if suddenly we have to manufacture everything ourselves? The prices would sky rocket. :rolleyes:


South America

and sooner or later China is going to become such a cesspool they're going to fukk themselves over and all of their cheap crap with super cheap poisonous/polluted goods are going to get denied from imports to most countries. i swear somethign like that is going to happen to them at some point.

[Godzuki]

You don't seem to have any concept about the war.
USA would lack the sheer number of soldiers that China has to compete with them.

Russia has the toughest mofos round the world.

Technology lol.
What would help you so bad? Unmaned drones that Russia's superb AA system would pick like flies?
Russia has better air technology than USA, check the tests.

Besides, USA's tactics are terrible, you have your army spred out around the world with small bases that would fall in a day when challenged by a bigger military force.

Soldiers win wars, Germany had better technology, at least on the ground, than any other country in WW2 and they lost due to the infinite amount of soldiers that Russia could throw at them

USA doesn't abuse it's military? Then what the **** it has been doing in the middle east for 10-15 years now?
How many years have USA gone without a war since the declaration of independence? Like 4?


WTF world are u living in?

tech wins wars. Go look at us playing video games blowing dozens of ISIS ground troops up left and right. shit is so easy its almost wrong. We've been doing that for a long time. Drones completely wrecked Taliban.

Drones are like birds idiot, so unnless u have radar that can distinguish between birds and drones which i don't think any can, drones are another EZ search and destroy tech video game.

ground troops are only needed in todays warfare to pinpoint enemy, secure/occupy for whatever reasons, and thats pretty much it. i mean we only had ground troops in Iraq to help them rebuild and train the Iraqi government, while keeping the place from complete anarchy. usually countries don't give a fukk about that....but we're way too nice. I bet Putin would never have helped the Iraqi people rebuild if he were in our shoes. We play by politically correct warfare which is pretty dumb IMO, but it is what it is.

[GimmeThat]

I could be wrong about war

but in war, you don't find a nice plane field and line up all the soldiers and count on 3 before it starts.

I'd like to think that having a supreme military tactician matters


wasn't "enemy at the gates" about a Russian sniper who consistenlty took out the opposing ranked officer that eventually got the attention of another highly ranked German Sniper.


while the nuclear bomb has given people some serious consideration as to the rules of warfare.

the United Nation should really put some heavy consideration as to whose responsibility it is to adopt certain countries that are struggling in civilization advancement because of their own wrongdoing.


some countries/regions have no allies


and while I am unaware of the mission of the United Nation
I'd like to believe that at the very least, if some countries/regions meets a certain criterias, they are then obligated for the attempt of assistant, before letting their condition to worsen in the scenario of refusal, which also includes the limitation of polution perhaps either by geographical size or per capita.

[Angel Face]

US have the strongest Military in the world, technology and manpower. That doesn't mean they have best soldiers though. Israelis and Brits have better soldiers.

China's military technology isn't on par with US, not a chance, they have almost 800k more soldiers than US but they won't stand a chance against Americans.

Lastly, Russia the real threat, they also have the manpower and technology. US have more advanced technology though.

1. US
2. Russia
3. China

Also, with wars like these involving large countries, the offensive side will always be at disadvantage. US won't beat China/Rusia in their home court same as China /Russia they can't also beat US in theirs.

[KevinNYC]

You don't seem to have any concept about the war.
USA would lack the sheer number of soldiers that China has to compete with them.

Russia has the toughest mofos round the world.

Technology lol.
What would help you so bad? Unmaned drones that Russia's superb AA system would pick like flies?
Russia has better air technology than USA, check the tests.

Besides, USA's tactics are terrible, you have your army spred out around the world with small bases that would fall in a day when challenged by a bigger military force.

Soldiers win wars, Germany had better technology, at least on the ground, than any other country in WW2 and they lost due to the infinite amount of soldiers that Russia could throw at them

USA doesn't abuse it's military? Then what the **** it has been doing in the middle east for 10-15 years now?
How many years have USA gone without a war since the declaration of independence? Like 4?


I have no idea why you are so impressed the number of soldiers Russia and China have. Where is the war you are talking about taking place? They are not going to invade the US and the US is not going to invade them.

Germany lost WWII, because it was fighting a two front war and it made disastrous decisions and Hitler took control of all military strategy and he was a terrible strategist. One of these disastrous decisions was to fight a two front war in the first place.


Besides, USA's tactics are terrible, you have your army spred out around the world with small bases that would fall in a day when challenged by a bigger military force. Again, how exactly would these bigger military forces just appear outside US bases? Russian or China is going to invade the countries these bases are in?

[Nick Young]

You don't seem to have any concept about the war.
USA would lack the sheer number of soldiers that China has to compete with them.

Russia has the toughest mofos round the world.

Technology lol.
What would help you so bad? Unmaned drones that Russia's superb AA system would pick like flies?
Russia has better air technology than USA, check the tests.

Besides, USA's tactics are terrible, you have your army spred out around the world with small bases that would fall in a day when challenged by a bigger military force.

Soldiers win wars, Germany had better technology, at least on the ground, than any other country in WW2 and they lost due to the infinite amount of soldiers that Russia could throw at them

USA doesn't abuse it's military? Then what the **** it has been doing in the middle east for 10-15 years now?
How many years have USA gone without a war since the declaration of independence? Like 4?

China only has a chance to compete with us if we invade them and they start hiding in the mountains and rice paddies Afghan/Vietnam style.

Even then we would have a huge advantage in terms of casualties caused.

In an open battle field? China gets curb stomped. WE HAVE TANKS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN BROUGHT DOWN. What the phuck is china gonna do against indestructible tanks and stealth bombers?

You are clueless.


Only chance china and russia have is if we invade them and they wait us out using gorrila tactics.

We would crush both of their military infrastructures very very quickly meeting little to no resistance.

China and Russia would only have a chance on their home turf..

Face the music biotch.

If this grand battle took place in the Sahara desert, no nukes allowed, USA vs Russia+China, it would be a swift and dominating US victory.

[Nick Young]

Why are non-americans acting so insecure and spewing out lies, about Russia and China being able to beat the US?:lol Do they honestly believe that or are they only trying to convince themselves? Face reality non-Americans.

We da bess.

it's time you accept it.

[GimmeThat]

Why are non-americans acting so insecure and spewing out lies, about Russia and China being able to beat the US?:lol Do they honestly believe that or are they only trying to convince themselves? Face reality non-Americans.

We da bess.

it's time you accept it.


you had me concerned about the whole border crisis there for a bit

good to know that's a none-issue

[NumberSix]

China will NEVER be a world superpower. All it will ever be is a giant warehouse for cheap labour. If China ever had to face economic sanctions, the entire country would crumble. 20 years from now, they won't even be able to breath their own air or drink their own water. That country is a cesspool on the brink of destroying itself.

China is a shitty third world country masquerading as a civilized world power.

[chosen_one6]

OP is an idiot, gloating about how much we spend on the military. It's all for naught. Our nation is turning into a shithole and the education is terrible. We're housing a bunch of idiots with guns shouting "Murica!" because we've got better ones than everyone else. And this shit won't stop either. The politicians in office get cuts of this money from the military industry. Virtually all of the large military weapons manufacturers have politicians that have stock in those companies. So they have ulterior motives to keep the military spending high, because they get paid more.

[VIntageNOvel]

yeah but since right now everything is made in china (including part your satellites) and how you can manucfacture everything in china with 1/10 cost, 135 billions china > 700 billions US

[Nick Young]

yeah but since right now everything is made in china (including part your satellites) and how you can manucfacture everything in china with 1/10 cost, 135 billions china > 700 billions US
lol u still butthurt bro? We wouldnt need to manufacture new shit. War vs china would be over swiftly.

Then we can give control to the Taiwan government to act as our puppet leadership.

That's why China knows not to start shit with us. They know they will become Taiwans bitches if they act out against our wishes.

[NumberSix]

yeah but since right now everything is made in china (including part your satellites) and how you can manucfacture everything in china with 1/10 cost, 135 billions china > 700 billions US
China is basically incompetent though. A result of being a communist country. They invent NOTHING. They innovate NOTHING. All the do is manufacture things that other people invent and show them how to make. Their technical capacity consists of slave workers tuning on the automated machines that corporations from other countries put their because it's cheaper.

America is CONSTANTLY innovating and improving in technology. China isn't. Money doesn't matter. China simply doesn't have the tech that America does. There's only their own incompetent communist government. You think their idiot commie government is doing groundbreaking science?

[TheGreatBlaze]

Lol at people siding with China because they hate the US that much :roll:

$tats don't lie, USA is far and away the strongest force on this globe and everybody knows it.

[MavsSuperFan]

It's funny because basically nobody can beat the US by themselves and have to as for help from other countries...while the US is basically powerful enough to kill all of them and just chill while doing so.
the us also has the most allies :pimp: :pimp:

[MavsSuperFan]

Check the $tats

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/4A8078449E794DFB8CC33ADD00A6F1AF.gif


:pimp:
Literally every country on that list other than russia and china are an american ally. Brazil and india are not an official ally but we dont have an antagonistic relationship. Russia and China, 2 very warlike states, are the only countries that wont accept the america POV for what the world should be.

UK, France, Germany, Canada, Italy are Nato allies

Japan, Australia and south korea are MNNA, in fact south korea is arguably one of our closest allies, they deployed 20,308 troops to iraq, troop levels were never higher than about 3,600 at anyone time. (more than almost all of our nato allies) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaytun_Division

Major non-NATO ally (MNNA) is a designation given by the United States government to close allies who have strategic working relationships with US Armed Forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Saudi arabia is an unofficial ally. defense of saudi arabia was a primary reason for the first gulf war.

[TheGreatBlaze]

Literally every country on that list other than russia and china are an american ally. Brazil and india are not an official ally but we dont have an antagonistic relationship.

UK, France, Germany, Canada, Italy are Nato allies

Japan and south korea are MNNA, in fact south korea is arguably one of our closest allies, they deployed 20,308 troops to iraq, troop levels were never higher than about 3,600 at anyone time. (more than almost all of our nato allies) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaytun_Division

Major non-NATO ally (MNNA) is a designation given by the United States government to close allies who have strategic working relationships with US Armed Forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Saudi arabia is an unofficial ally. defense of saudi arabia was a primary reason for the first gulf war.
Ain't fair :oldlol: :pimp:

You'd be stupid not to ally with us though.

[MavsSuperFan]

Ain't fair :oldlol: :pimp:

You'd be stupid not to ally with us though.
Most because America despite its immense military power is fundamentally a moral and just country.

Unlike Russia and China who seek to militarily bully their neighbors and annex resources and territory. Sometimes america reluctantly uses military forces when our interests are threatened and for the great global good.

The US maintains good relations with almost all countries on earth, especially our neighbors.

Russia and China's neighbors are scared of them.

[MavsSuperFan]

Rome fell.

You can cite all the tanks, weapon systems, helicopters, etc but the truth of the matter is there are quite a few countries who hate us. A combined attack from Russia and China would cripple us. We haven't fought(only formed tension) a real superpower country in over half a century. We've basically ducked the real players. I.e. lebron playing in the east.
1. we would beat russia and china.

2. they could never attack US. the russian and chinese navies are nothing compared to ours.

3. Russia and china could never work together long term. In any alliance one member has to accept being lead by the other member. Both china and russia would want to be in charge. Russia and china are more likely to fight against each other than to ally.

[KingBeasley08]

People don't understand how much better the US navy is compared to the rest of the world. Add to that we are flanked by two oceans so if Russia or China ever wanted to attack, they'd have to use their far inferior navies to try and do so (and they would get absolutely crushed)

[MavsSuperFan]

You're talking complete shit.

Putin is a joke? you do realize that he made USA Russia's bitch in numerous situations now?

China could challenge USA or Russia anyday in a full scale war.
Any of those three would be an equal opponent to the other
the fact that putin has to fight over controlling a part of Ukraine is a sign of how far Russia's sphere of influence has fallen. It is the equivalent of us worrying about mexico or canada turning towards china.

Russia is a declining power. its economy is dependant on oil prices. it manufactures very little. it can barely feed itself, without agricultural imports. it is a well armed gas station. Russia beating up on georgia and ukraine indicates nothing.

Whats the last thing the russian economy has invented?

China is militarily backward compared to the US.

[MavsSuperFan]

People don't understand how much better the US navy is compared to the rest of the world. Add to that we are flanked by two oceans so if Russia or China ever wanted to attack, they'd have to use their far inferior navies to try and do so (and they would get absolutely crushed)
Further the US is far superior on the ground and in the air.

Seriously if Russia and china fought us, they would start hiding in the jungles vietcong style and fight us asymmetrically.

maybe use hamas like urban warfare tactics.

They wouldn't fight us conventionally.

Not saying that they couldnt damage us, just that they would resort to asymmetric/guerrilla warfare.

[SexSymbol]

1. we would beat russia and china.

2. they could never attack US. the russian and chinese navies are nothing compared to ours.

3. Russia and china could never work together long term. In any alliance one member has to accept being lead by the other member. Both china and russia would want to be in charge. Russia and china are more likely to fight against each other than to ally.


1-2 complete bullshit
3 is some kind of a bullshit, I agree with them not working long term, but they would definitely team up to destroy USA rather than each other

[SexSymbol]

Further the US is far superior on the ground and in the air.

Seriously if Russia and china fought us, they would start hiding in the jungles vietcong style and fight us asymmetrically.

maybe use hamas like urban warfare tactics.

They wouldn't fight us conventionally.

Not saying that they couldnt damage us, just that they would resort to asymmetric/guerrilla warfare.
You have no concept of war.
Russia can have 10000 extra tanks assembled by the end of the week if the war started today.
And remember one thing, Russia wouldn't threaten USA if they couldn't back it up

[SexSymbol]

I have no idea why you are so impressed the number of soldiers Russia and China have. Where is the war you are talking about taking place? They are not going to invade the US and the US is not going to invade them.

Germany lost WWII, because it was fighting a two front war and it made disastrous decisions and Hitler took control of all military strategy and he was a terrible strategist. One of these disastrous decisions was to fight a two front war in the first place.

Again, how exactly would these bigger military forces just appear outside US bases? Russian or China is going to invade the countries these bases are in?

Hitler was a fantastic strategist until the explosion got the better of his nerves.
He didn't have a choice, they had to attack Russia first

Obviously Russia and China would invade USA's allies to take over their bases, that's how you win a war

[TheGreatBlaze]

You have no concept of war.
Russia can have 10000 extra tanks assembled by the end of the week if the war started today.
And remember one thing, Russia wouldn't threaten USA if they couldn't back it up
:roll:

Russia would get their sh*t stuffed.

[TheGreatBlaze]

Russia's 10,000 tanks are ready :roll:

http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/2007/05/tank.jpg

[KevinNYC]

Hitler was a fantastic strategist until the explosion got the better of his nerves.
He didn't have a choice, they had to attack Russia first

Obviously Russia and China would invade USA's allies to take over their bases, that's how you win a war

I would love to hear you expand on each of these points.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

And remember one thing, Russia wouldn't threaten USA if they couldn't back it up

Neither would North Korea. Right guys? guys...?

[MavsSuperFan]

You have no concept of war.
Russia can have 10000 extra tanks assembled by the end of the week if the war started today.
And remember one thing, Russia wouldn't threaten USA if they couldn't back it up
US manufacturing >>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian manufacturing. You have been watching too much russia today. Your nation is a declining power.

Your nation struggled vs chechnya

[MavsSuperFan]

1-2 complete bullshit
3 is some kind of a bullshit, I agree with them not working long term, but they would definitely team up to destroy USA rather than each other
1. name an area of warfare either russia or china have an advantage.

You cant.

We have better warships and more warships.

We have better air superiority fighters and strike/all purpose fighters
We have better stealth bombers, etc.

We have better missile defense and missiles.

We have better artillery and drones.

The closest area would be our main battle tanks, which is a push. Meaningless though as the US would destroy an enemy tank force from the air.

The challenge with fighting Russia or China would be once they go asymmetric and start using guerrilla warfare. They know the US is too politically correct to just masacre their civilians.

2. Do you honestly believe the russian navy is a real threat to the US navy?

[millwad]

lol China would get destroyed but they're all about money/economy and so invested in us they'd never really try to hurt us i'd think because they'd be hurting themselves.

yeah Putin has made us his bitch but thats because we're real soft...and the EU are way softer. Lets just say if NKorea, Russia, or some country like that had our power they'd be throwing it around bullying the fukk out of people way more than we do.

either way we'd destroy everyone with our tech, we wouldn't even need troops to do it. pretty soon we'll probably have anti nuke missile programs setup like Iron Dome'sh but capable of stopping nukes i bet. i can definitely see that coming sooner or later.

everyone is pretty weak compared to us, like half our mililtary/economy currently. we just don't abuse it like most countries would. hate all u want but its true :pimp:

I hope you're not serious.

[millwad]

And there's no reason to brag about the US military power, money that should be spent on healthcare, education and to improve the peoples living conditions are getting spent in awful fashion.

[shlver]

You have no concept of war.
Russia can have 10000 extra tanks assembled by the end of the week if the war started today.
And remember one thing, Russia wouldn't threaten USA if they couldn't back it up
And what good will 10000 tanks do if they can't cross the ocean?

[97 bulls]

And what good will 10000 tanks do if they can't cross the ocean?
And not to metion. Before those tanks would be deployed, the US would send bomb the hell out of Russia or China to soften them up.

And as some on stated earlier. The US biggest strength is our borders. No one can invade us without us having days (possibly weeks) to prepare. Any war fought would be on enemy soil.

[GilZero]

This will look incredibly silly when your economy falls completely on its ass within the next 50 years. Good luck USA :oldlol:

[Nick Young]

1. name an area of warfare either russia or china have an advantage.

You cant.

We have better warships and more warships.

We have better air superiority fighters and strike/all purpose fighters
We have better stealth bombers, etc.

We have better missile defense and missiles.

We have better artillery and drones.

The closest area would be our main battle tanks, which is a push. Meaningless though as the US would destroy an enemy tank force from the air.

The challenge with fighting Russia or China would be once they go asymmetric and start using guerrilla warfare. They know the US is too politically correct to just masacre their civilians.

2. Do you honestly believe the russian navy is a real threat to the US navy?
Yep, Russia and Chinas only chance at victory is geurrilla warfare and terrorist human shield tactics on their home turf, but USA would not be stupid enough to invade these countries in a ground invasion. If push actually came to shove and we had to go against China and Russia to the death, I got no doubt we would just firebomb the entire two countries in to the dust, wouldnt even really need to use nukes.

[MavsSuperFan]

Yep, Russia and Chinas only chance at victory is geurrilla warfare and terrorist human shield tactics on their home turf, but USA would not be stupid enough to invade these countries in a ground invasion. If push actually came to shove and we had to go against China and Russia to the death, I got no doubt we would just firebomb the entire two countries in to the dust, wouldnt even really need to use nukes.
if its to the death everyone loses as they would launch ICBMs and we would respond with ours. Our missile shield wouldnt be enough to stop a full nuclear assault.

Neither russia or china have a credible missile shield and rely on mutually assured destruction for deterrence. If they think their core territories are threatened they would launch and then we would launch.

Hopefully some day the US develops anti missile technology to where we can intercept MIRV ICBMs reliably, but we still rely on MAD to deter strikes against us.

[97 bulls]

And lets not forget. The US and UK/Great Britian are like brothers. You mess with one the other jumps in. Both China or Russia would have their hands full with the UK much less the US.

[MavsSuperFan]

You overate the UK. they have allowed themselves to become militarily weak.

Their difficulties in the helmand province and basra

[KevinNYC]

Our missile shield wouldnt be enough to stop a full nuclear assault.

There's really no evidence our missile shield can stop a single missile.


Aside from our tests being rigged, the ways to fool a missile defense have been known for decades. It's unreasonable to think our enemies have not implemented countermeasures.

[SexSymbol]

US manufacturing >>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian manufacturing. You have been watching too much russia today. Your nation is a declining power.

Your nation struggled vs chechnya
I'm not a russian, nor do I support them, Lithuania has been under their control for 50 years, and pretty much everybody here hates Russia.
That doesn't mean I will be biased and ignore the simple concept of war

USA couldn't win in Vietnam, I don't see how that shows anything to us.

The simple fact of the matter is that even at their best, USA's anti-missile systems would let at least 10 percent of Russia's nukes go trough. And 10 percent is probably all it would need.
Russia has better attack planes, various tests have showed this, better helis and so on, USA's real strength is air supperiority, and I can't see how they would have any against Russia's superior technology and an astonishing quantity of AA guns.
USA would probably have an advantage in the water, though Russia's submarines were proved uncatchable by USA ships' radars, so there can be an argument there.

The numbers are there of course, but the fact is that soldiers win wars, and russia's soldiers are second to none in terms of commitment and skill. Technology is there also

[KevinNYC]

Russia has better attack planes, various tests have showed this, better helis and so on

What planes are you speaking of? Can you give details?

[Godzuki]

I'm not a russian, nor do I support them, Lithuania has been under their control for 50 years, and pretty much everybody here hates Russia.
That doesn't mean I will be biased and ignore the simple concept of war

USA couldn't win in Vietnam, I don't see how that shows anything to us.

The simple fact of the matter is that even at their best, USA's anti-missile systems would let at least 10 percent of Russia's nukes go trough. And 10 percent is probably all it would need.
Russia has better attack planes, various tests have showed this, better helis and so on, USA's real strength is air supperiority, and I can't see how they would have any against Russia's superior technology and an astonishing quantity of AA guns.
USA would probably have an advantage in the water, though Russia's submarines were proved uncatchable by USA ships' radars, so there can be an argument there.

The numbers are there of course, but the fact is that soldiers win wars, and russia's soldiers are second to none in terms of commitment and skill. Technology is there also


Russia could be economically broken in 10~ years. they're being heavily sanctioned by the west where Putin is willing to eat it...you know the EU are figuring out ways to be less dependent on their oil/gas as we speak...they're big partners are Iran who is already crumbling from our sanctions and India....and they just put a ton of their money into their military budget for the next 10~ years.

I mean they have to be taking some major economical hits at some point. Sanctions usually take a good couple years to really hurt so now is not a good gauge. If anyone should be worrying about crumbling economically its Russia. Plus most of their former soviet states hate them i believe.


shit is looking real bleak for Russia :pimp:

[Nick Young]

I'm not a russian, nor do I support them, Lithuania has been under their control for 50 years, and pretty much everybody here hates Russia.
That doesn't mean I will be biased and ignore the simple concept of war

USA couldn't win in Vietnam, I don't see how that shows anything to us.

The simple fact of the matter is that even at their best, USA's anti-missile systems would let at least 10 percent of Russia's nukes go trough. And 10 percent is probably all it would need.
Russia has better attack planes, various tests have showed this, better helis and so on, USA's real strength is air supperiority, and I can't see how they would have any against Russia's superior technology and an astonishing quantity of AA guns.
USA would probably have an advantage in the water, though Russia's submarines were proved uncatchable by USA ships' radars, so there can be an argument there.

The numbers are there of course, but the fact is that soldiers win wars, and russia's soldiers are second to none in terms of commitment and skill. Technology is there also
You got some kind of crazy Stockholm syndrome then bro. Russia has zero chance to beat USA in war. Their only hope would be guerrilla warfare and terrorist tactics but USA would not be retarded and try to have a ground invasion of Russia unless we really wanted their oil.

USA has a massive airforce advantage. Doesn't matter if Russian fighters have better combat capabilities, their fighters would be outnumbered ATLEAST 5-1 in the air, and their airforce bases would be DESTROYED within the first 24 hours of combat. USA would OWN the skies 100% after that.

On the ground-AGAIN NO CONTEST
at Sea-NO CONTEST

USA vs Russia would be a USA curb stomp. Russia has a chance if USA invades, but USA will never in a million years try to invade Russia unless we get a Hitler psycho megalomaniac in as president.

[97 bulls]

I'm not a russian, nor do I support them, Lithuania has been under their control for 50 years, and pretty much everybody here hates Russia.
That doesn't mean I will be biased and ignore the simple concept of war

USA couldn't win in Vietnam, I don't see how that shows anything to us.

The simple fact of the matter is that even at their best, USA's anti-missile systems would let at least 10 percent of Russia's nukes go trough. And 10 percent is probably all it would need.
Russia has better attack planes, various tests have showed this, better helis and so on, USA's real strength is air supperiority, and I can't see how they would have any against Russia's superior technology and an astonishing quantity of AA guns.
USA would probably have an advantage in the water, though Russia's submarines were proved uncatchable by USA ships' radars, so there can be an argument there.

The numbers are there of course, but the fact is that soldiers win wars, and russia's soldiers are second to none in terms of commitment and skill. Technology is there also
Russia lost the Afghan war. A war in which the US gave Afghan soldiers weapons from their "lower end" of weapons.

And the US didnt lose the Vietnamese war. They pulled out. But if i remember correct, we only loss one battle. The Vietnamese government just wouldn't give up. And it was not a popular war in the eyes of US citizens.

[Nick Young]

Russia has better attack planes, various tests have showed this, better helis and so on

What planes are you speaking of? Can you give details?
This pro-Russian litho gobbling up that Russian propaganda. He actually thinks the Russian airforce would defeat the US airforce. He genuinely believes that.:lol

[eliteballer]

Russia's conventional forces would get their butts kicked by NATO Europe alone, much less the US.

There's such a huge gap in technology.

and no "10000 tanks" that are 30 years behind in tech and wouldn't have the logistics base to support them in the field anyway are pretty much just a paper tiger.

The A-10 warthog alone would make a mess of them.

[CelticBaller]

Russia's conventional forces would get their butts kicked by NATO Europe alone, much less the US.

There's such a huge gap in technology.

and no "10000 tanks" that are 30 years behind in tech and wouldn't have the logistics base to support them in the field anyway are pretty much just a paper tiger.

The A-10 warthog alone would make a mess of them.
Dudes hate the US so they prop up Russia as if it were true :oldlol:

[Godzuki]

pretty interesting read:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/what-the-former-soviet-states-are-thinking-about-russia-20140404

With no evidence that Russia has any plans to withdraw its troops from the border of Ukraine, some former Soviet states are worried about their own regional security. Farther east, other countries, closely aligned with Moscow rather than the West, say they are trying to ease tensions. And several central Asian states have responded by simply staying silent.

The United States and NATO announced this week that they are boosting military support in the Baltic region, which is on especially high alert. Moscow has long complained about Russians' rights there, and its takeover of Crimea suggests it may be willing to do something about it. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he has no plans to go further than the recent annexation, but maintains his right to defend ethnic Russians in foreign countries.

Here's where the former Soviet republics stand on the Ukraine crisis.

Ukraine

Well, you know.

"I want to be perfectly clear. We will never recognize the annexation of Crimea," Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk told Reuters on Friday. "The time will come when Ukraine will take over control of Crimea." Russia has hiked up the price of natural gas for Ukraine by 80 percent, a move Yatseniuk called "totally unacceptable."

Estonia

Last month, Russia "signaled concern" at Estonia's treatment of its large ethnic Russian minority. Russian officials took aim at Estonia's national language policy, which is similar to that of Ukraine, where all children use Ukrainian in school. A quarter of Estonia's 1.3 million people are Russian speakers.

Some fear this could give Putin all he needs to intervene in the country, but Russians there say they don't need to be "rescued."

Still, the Estonian government is wary. "Russia's posture has no place in the 21st century," Foreign Minister Urmas Paet said last week. This week, Estonian Prime Minister Taavi Roivas called for NATO to deploy "boots on the ground" to the Baltics. Estonia regained its independence when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, after more than 50 years of Russian rule.

Latvia

"We are very much concerned about what is happening currently in Ukraine, but we are not hysterical of course," Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkevics said recently. If the situation escalates, his government would consider imposing sanctions against Russia. Until then, a NATO presence is crucial in all Baltic states, he said.

This week, Latvia banned a Russian-language TV channel, citing "war propaganda."

Latvia, like the other Baltic states and much of Western Europe, depends heavily on Russian exports of natural gas and crude oil. Latvian President Andris Berzins has called for accelerating construction on gas pipelines linking Poland, Lithuania, and eventually Latvia. This week, Berzins asked the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, who is considered a Kremlin ally, to postpone his planned May visit to Latvia, citing tensions between Russia and Ukraine.

About 35 percent of Latvia's population of 2 million are Russian speakers. About 270,000 Latvians, most of whom came to the country for work during the Soviet era, do not have citizenship. They feel like they are "second-class citizens." "This is Russia's land," one resident recently told Reuters. Latvia was also taken over by the Soviet Union in 1940 and did not regain its independence until 1991.


Lithuania

"The Russians occupied a part of Ukraine and they concentrated their forces, and I think we should be ready to defend our states if this aggression should continue," Jouzas Olekas, Lithuania's defense minister, said this week. Regularly scheduled Russian military activity over the Baltic airspace has put Lithuanian officials on edge.

Last month, Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite said Russia's annexation of Crimea is a direct threat to Lithuania's regional security. "We witnessed the use of brutal force to redraw the map of Europe and to undermine the postwar political architecture established in Europe," she said.

The Soviet Union annexed Lithuania in 1940. Russians make up 6 percent of Lithuania's population.

Belarus

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, a close ally of Moscow, said last month that Russia's annexation of Crimea sets a "bad precedent." Ukraine, he said, should remain "a single, indivisible, integral, nonbloc state."

Belarus and Russia, however, are still talking. The two nations' foreign ministers met on the sidelines of a Moscow meeting of the Commonwealth of Independent States, an organization of former Soviet republics, to discuss working together to diminish regional tensions. Belarus also voted against a U.N. General Assembly resolution last month declaring Crimea's referendum invalid.

[Godzuki]

(continued)

A Belarusian news agency on Thursday said Belarus-Russia cooperation in the nuclear energy sector has "a bright future."

Moldova

Moldovan Prime Minister Iurie Leanca has asked both Western leaders and Russia "to prevent his country from falling apart." But the country has recently shown its Western leanings. On Thursday, Leanca praised a decision by the European Union to lift visa restrictions on Moldova, allowing its citizens to travel through the Schengen area, a passport-free zone spanning 26 European countries. "I want to tell the skeptics, who until recently have not believed that we will travel freely to the European Union, that the prospect of joining the European Union will be recognized in the same way," he said.

Rumors are swirling that Russian special forces have already arrived in Transnistria, a small Russian-occupied republic that broke away from Moldova after a civil war in 1992. Transnistria, which no United Nations members legally recognize, is well under Moscow's influence. Moldova's closer ties to the E.U. have been met with threats from Moscow's representative to Transnistria.

Armenia

Armenia, unlike just about everyone else, recognized the results of Crimea's March referendum to become a part of Russia. Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan told Putin that the vote was "yet another example of the realization of peoples' right to self-determination."

Armenia recently announced plans to boost its yearly imports of gas from neighboring Iran by 75 percent, and in exchange export electricity to the Middle Eastern country. The move has been met with relative silence from Russia, which controls Armenia's entire gas-pipeline system.

The non-reaction, Marianna Grigoryan explains at Eurasianet.org, could be attributed to Putin's desire to bring Armenia into a Eurasian Economic Community union it created with Belarus and Kazakhstan in 2010. Members hope to expand the organization this year to other former Soviet states, and furnish it as a counterweight to the E.U. An E.U. commissioner said Friday that the union "undermines the sovereignty of individual countries."

Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan, on the other hand, condemned the Crimea referendum, and a statement from its embassy in Kiev said it "condemns extremism, radicalism and separatism in its every manifestation and once again confirms its adherence to the principles of sovereignty, independence and support of the territorial integrity of Ukraine."

But Azerbaijan has to tread carefully. Russia, along with the U.S. and France, has played the role of mediator in Azerbaijan's ongoing battle with Armenia for Nagorno-Karabakh, a landlocked region in the South Caucasus.

Georgia

Georgia broke diplomatic relations with Russia six years ago, following the South Ossetia war, a brief armed conflict between the two nations. Russia still occupies two breakaway provinces inside Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which Russia helped support in their fight against Georgia in 2008.

NATO membership for Georgia is far off, but the alliance's foreign ministers met this week with their Georgian counterpart in Brussels to talk about its possible eventual accession. In February, Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashivili advocated for a full seat at the table. "This desire is supported by the overwhelming majority of the Georgian population, as well as Georgia's major political parties," he said. "The Georgian government will undertake every effort to continue the path of reforms that will bring us closer to NATO."

Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan, which borders Russia in the south, has the largest population of ethnic Russians out of the former Soviet republics in central Asia, at 22 percent of its population. Last month, its president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, told Putin that he understood Moscow's stance on Crimea. But he said that Kazakhstan's cooperation with Russia on the recently formed union doesn't mean Moscow would exert more influence in the country.

"As far as our political independence is concerned, this is sacrosanct, and Kazakhstan will not cede its sovereignty to anyone," Nazarbayev said.

Kyrgyzstan

Kyrgyzstan's foreign ministry bashed ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in a statement last month, which hinted at the country's past failed attempts at parliamentary democracy.

"The only source of power in any country is its people, and a president who lost his people's trust, who de facto lost his presidential authority and, moreover, who fled the country, cannot be legitimate," the statement said. However, Kyrgyzstan, faced with threats of retaliation from Moscow, abstained from voting last month on a U.N. resolution that declared Crimea's referendum illegal.

Kyrgyzstan maintains strong ties to Russia, which provides generous aid packages to the cash-strapped nation, as well as arms and fuel, and it hopes to join the Eurasian Economic Community. In other other words, Kyrgyzstan is firmly in Russia's grasp.

Tajikistan

Tajikistan also depends heavily on Russian aid. Like Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan did not vote in the U.N. resolution condemning Crimea's vote to join Russia. Russian and Tajik representatives continue to cooperate on economic and trade issues, and have largely steered clear of discussing the Ukraine crisis.

Uzbekistan

Uzbekistan broke its silence on escalating tensions in Ukraine in early March but did not mention Russia. The events "pose a real threat to the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity," a statement from its foreign affairs ministry said, and " elicit deep concern in Uzbekistan."

Uzbekistan's leaders have cooperated with NATO on security issues in the past, but the country leans heavily toward Russia, thanks to strong economic ties. On Thursday, Moscow welcomed Uzbekistan into the free-trade zone of the Commonwealth of Independent States, an arrangement that will boost trade between Uzbekistan and its fellow former Soviet republics. Uzbekistan has also asked Russian energy firms to help tap its vast hydrocarbon deposits.

Turkmenistan

Turkmenistan, ruled by a Soviet-era holdover with zero tolerance for dissent, depends on a Russian pipeline for exports, but it has recently turned to Beijing for more business. The competition may spell future trouble for Russia, but Turkmenistan has no plans to sever ties with Moscow, let alone make comments about its involvement in Ukraine.

[SexSymbol]

Russia's conventional forces would get their butts kicked by NATO Europe alone, much less the US.

There's such a huge gap in technology.

and no "10000 tanks" that are 30 years behind in tech and wouldn't have the logistics base to support them in the field anyway are pretty much just a paper tiger.

The A-10 warthog alone would make a mess of them.

You should check your information.
There's literally nothing besides the "railgun" that Russia is behind in technology at.
They have better attack planes and helicopters. USA's ships cannot detect Russia's submarines too, so what good is shiny technology if it can't do shit?

[KevinNYC]

They have better attack planes and helicopters.

Again which planes and helicopters are you speaking of?

[Derka]

You should check your information.
There's literally nothing besides the "railgun" that Russia is behind in technology at.
They have better attack planes and helicopters. USA's ships cannot detect Russia's submarines too, so what good is shiny technology if it can't do shit?
Proof? The Russians have always been a generation behind the US in sub tech. At the height of Soviet defense spending, they were still trotting out diesels against nuclear-powered Ohio-class US subs. There's no evidence whatsoever that this has changed in the wake of the USSR's collapse and the 30-odd years since.

[pastis]

only americans can be proud of this. spending so much money for military rather than spending it for social projects, like the health system, infrastructure or that universities are free for everyone (like france, germany)


usa:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[NZStreetBaller]

You do realize that the american government is spending up large on weapons to build their forces stronger then ever while concurrently trying to crash the american economy to force a war so it can utilized to screen the reality of their depopulation objective right????

[NZStreetBaller]

Keep applauding your self destructive government sheep. They feed you the crap they want you to know and you eat it up

[IcanzIIravor]

Keep applauding your self destructive government sheep. They feed you the crap they want you to know and you eat it up

I love this type of argument. I hate government. I won't back up my hate with facts. If you disagree with me it is because you are a sheep. Great debate skills.

[Godzuki]

only americans can be proud of this. spending so much money for military rather than spending it for social projects, like the health system, infrastructure or that universities are free for everyone (like france, germany)


usa:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

makes u mad doesnt it?

makes a lot of foreigners mad that we're bad mf'ers, and ya'll are way beneath us :pimp:

[9erempiree]

Our infrastructure is actually great but other things not so.