I am not a neocon but I do believe in Pax Americana. Their hypersonics are hype. Yes they are ahead of us in a deployable glide vehicle for now. That does not matter a hill of beans when 1 boomer can launch 24 missiles carrying 8 independent warheads. 192 targets! 18 active subs capable of hitting 3500 targets. If NATO rolls into Kiev after an invite there is not a d@mn thing he can do about it short of nukes...Its called MAD and that did not change with his new toys.
There are no limited nuke exchanges. Whoever holds the land keeps it short of an invasion of NATO or Russian territory. He stole parts of Georgia and took the Crimea. But he will not take the Ukraine if NATO is on the ground first.
Russian GDP is 1,5T compared to NATO 19T
Russian pop 145M and NATO has 600+M but if EU got involved total pop of such and alliance would be north of 800M
Just like the confederacy he is out manned and out gunned from the start. He has no hope of winning a conventional war. Do you think he risks nuclear war when the USoA can rain down 3500 nukes on his head in between 10-30 min.
But but but glide vehicles! Yeah he was going to launch land based missiles with either hypersonic gliders or regular warheads and we cant stop them either as our SMD is limited.
I am at a loss on how to reply in a cogent manner. Please allow me to enumerate in a haphazard fashion.
1) Pax Americana is a fashionable term used to advocate that because of America's innate goodness it has moral authority to become an empire with global power to bully any other nation, including military intervention anywhere and for any reason it chooses. That is a philosophical tenet that is anathema to any concept of a nation purporting to be composed of free people. It is precisely the justification neoconservatives and neoliberals have used to give themselves cover in their vision of global dominance (with themselves as the ultimate authorities, of course).
2). Your argument contradicts that being made by Mr. Coooer. He argues that Russia has developed technology that put America’s offensive military capability at extreme risk, and therefore taxpayers should dole out billions more to his friends in the weapons industry, and “friendly” allies should purchase billions worth more of those weapons. You, OTOH, pooh-pooh that argument and claim the US would annihilate Russia in any confrontation. So which one of you is correct?
3). You point to an overwhelming numbers mismatch between the Russian military and that of the so-called free world. I believe you said it was something to the tune of 145 million to 800 million. You seem to have forgotten that American aggression has driven China into the warm embrace of the Russians, adding 1.4 billion to the Russian side of the equation. That gives our enemies the advantage in the numbers game, by a considerable margin.
4). You argue that a limited nuclear war, should it happen, would fall to the advantage of America, which it very well might. But that is not a gamble any rational person ought to contemplate. Millions of fellow human beings, virtually all of them completely innocent and uninvolved in the game of brinkmanship being played by their self-described superiors, would vanish from the face of the earth, as they would be reduced to ash in the blink of an eye. Even if America were to avoid the worst of the damage there is no reason to believe we would avoid calamity, if for no other concern than the inevitable nuclear poisoning that would follow. But it is not reasonable to expect Russia (and China) would not retaliate with several hundred nukes of their own if they knew they were facing extinction. The whole thing is sheer insanity, and it is certain that once insanity is put into action even greater insanity will ensue.
5). You essentially avoided answering the question asking you to compare the American government’s global ambitions to those of Russia and China. The only thing you mentioned is Putin’s attempt to maintain Russia’s historical defensive buffer provided by countries in the old USSR as he watches America try to close in by assuming control of those territories by establishing puppet governments of its own, and violating it promise to keep its military out, as it violated the same promise in places like Poland.
I apologize for being so long winded.
breakingdefense.com
www.strategic-culture.org
