Focused military spending that isn't supported by actual economic strength is a pointless exercise in wasting money on assets that can't and won't be maintained. See here. If you live in Russia you should see personally that prices are increasing and pay is not, at least outside of the Russian state-sponsored internet brigades and hacking houses that are similarly inflated by defence spending focus - they also have no future without the economy recovering, so you should really start looking for a new job.
You do need to brush up on your geography and your missile defense history and (although SLBM are not ICBM the threat is similar) awareness. The point of ICBM is not to hit ANY territory but to hit specific targets - the Bering Strait doesn't come close compared to the distance from Siberia to Washington. This site focuses on other threats but has useful maps that demonstrate even a nation like Iran would better attack the US through polar routes.
You are a fucking idiot you don't understand military affairs, international affairs, history, or even I bet how short you fucking dick really is you fucking faggot.
Yes, it does read the fucking links faggot. You may jack off to power trips but treaties are enforceable by all parties. All space weapons do is fuck everyone from launching anything and it surviving debris also in orbit going fast enough to shred steel and everything else.
I think you have no idea of what function naval ships have. Do you honestly think all those communications monitoring systems aren't used in every single combat and near-combat situation? Do you not understand how paroling works to reduce piracy and the absence of patrolling increases it? Are you simply an idiot?
Also, the Kursk sinking had little to do with technical complexity but everything to do with Russia being incompetent and not funding maintenance. Largely because they had not money. Fortunately Russia is bankrupt and in a severe depression that is tanking its economy, so those fantasy systems will never exist.
Space-based weapons are illegal. Even the Chinese anti-satellite weapons are surface-based. See here , although there are some problems with enforcement.
Great post, best of all on this story. My only comment is that they are not being replaced by more updated systems and purely killing resupply leaves a huge gap in British naval capabilities.
Nope, read the linked article "The Navy’s Harpoon missiles will retire from the fleet’s frigates and destroyers in 2018 without a replacement, while there will also be a two year gap without helicopter-launched anti-shipping missiles."
Ships are not the only carriers of anti-ship missiles, and this budget cut damages all platforms. As another poser mentioned look into the Battle of Bubiyan and also here.
Also Britain DOES have several nuclear missile submarines, and only one is needed to offset the threat of homeland annihilation without ability to counterattack. Russia is working on developing tugboats for its submarines since it's only aircraft carrier needed one to even traverse the Mediterranean sea to reach Syria.
Slashdot Mirror
Focused military spending that isn't supported by actual economic strength is a pointless exercise in wasting money on assets that can't and won't be maintained. See here. If you live in Russia you should see personally that prices are increasing and pay is not, at least outside of the Russian state-sponsored internet brigades and hacking houses that are similarly inflated by defence spending focus - they also have no future without the economy recovering, so you should really start looking for a new job.
Read this for some context of five-powers and this for quick BOT reference.
It is also a question of protecting all overseas territories and keeping up agreements like the Five-Power commonwealth defence agreement.
You do need to brush up on your geography and your missile defense history and (although SLBM are not ICBM the threat is similar) awareness. The point of ICBM is not to hit ANY territory but to hit specific targets - the Bering Strait doesn't come close compared to the distance from Siberia to Washington. This site focuses on other threats but has useful maps that demonstrate even a nation like Iran would better attack the US through polar routes.
Actually EU nations are and it builds on work from past decades.
Alaska is negligible. ICBM flight paths from Russia are through Canadian airspace, so intercept relies on equipment stationed there.
You really don't understand how military budgeting do you?
Fucking read this if you're even literate you fucking idiot.
You are a fucking idiot you don't understand military affairs, international affairs, history, or even I bet how short you fucking dick really is you fucking faggot.
Read this and notice the GBP did fall horribly.
Yes actually, apparently you don't understand the support given to Oman which creates the only safe shipping corridor in the region.
Yes, it does read the fucking links faggot. You may jack off to power trips but treaties are enforceable by all parties. All space weapons do is fuck everyone from launching anything and it surviving debris also in orbit going fast enough to shred steel and everything else.
You are an idiot. Islam is not the enemy, radicals created by propaganda feeding on isolationism and idiocy are.
No, it's not "better" because end-of-life exists for reliability and safety reasons. Carrying old missiles means sinking your own ships with them.
Go away retard, you're a fucking idiot.
I think you have no idea of what function naval ships have. Do you honestly think all those communications monitoring systems aren't used in every single combat and near-combat situation? Do you not understand how paroling works to reduce piracy and the absence of patrolling increases it? Are you simply an idiot?
Also, the Kursk sinking had little to do with technical complexity but everything to do with Russia being incompetent and not funding maintenance. Largely because they had not money. Fortunately Russia is bankrupt and in a severe depression that is tanking its economy, so those fantasy systems will never exist.
Maybe, but like most "in production" systems, how many decades away is that really?
Space-based weapons are illegal. Even the Chinese anti-satellite weapons are surface-based. See here , although there are some problems with enforcement.
Great post, best of all on this story. My only comment is that they are not being replaced by more updated systems and purely killing resupply leaves a huge gap in British naval capabilities.
You can't make up your own version of the linked article and expect anyone else to comply.
Nope, read the linked article "The Navy’s Harpoon missiles will retire from the fleet’s frigates and destroyers in 2018 without a replacement, while there will also be a two year gap without helicopter-launched anti-shipping missiles."
You've conveniently forgotten about the Kursk and the other six. I think you're either a Republican convert to Putin-ism or a Russian spy.
Ships are not the only carriers of anti-ship missiles, and this budget cut damages all platforms. As another poser mentioned look into the Battle of Bubiyan and also here.
Also Britain DOES have several nuclear missile submarines, and only one is needed to offset the threat of homeland annihilation without ability to counterattack. Russia is working on developing tugboats for its submarines since it's only aircraft carrier needed one to even traverse the Mediterranean sea to reach Syria.