Members banned from this thread: The Anonymous, cawacko, cancel2 2022, PostmodernProphet, Truth Detector, tsuke, Wolverine, Sailor, RB 60, Tranquillus in Exile, Eagle_Eye, Flash, volsrock, Guno צְבִי, anonymoose, Jack, NiftyNiblick, reagansghost, Into the Night, gfm7175, Earl, Grokmaster, ]2epo]v[an, AProudLefty, ExpressLane, Doc Dutch, Concart, Hawkeye10, Yakuda, Son of the Revolution, Lionfish, LurchAddams and FreeSpeech1789 |
NATO allies together have a personnel count of 5.41 million, compared to Russia's 1.35 million, according to the graphic that was the same as Statista's figures.
It also found NATO allies had 144,000 armored units, more than double that of Russia's 60,000, again a similar number to Statista.
NATO once more outnumbered Russia with 20,700 aircraft, a factor of nearly five to one when compared to Russia's 4,170.
Russia is also outnumbered in regard to its naval forces, which number 605—far lower than NATO's 2,049—once again a similar number to Statista.
However, the graphic did highlight one area where Russia has numerical superiority over NATO allies, namely nuclear weapons.
Ukraine is just the tip of the spearBut nothing in Europe is "hyper-militarized".
We had detente with Russia during the Cold War.There would normally need to be a ceasefire, then a peace agreement, and finally much later we could start working on detente. 20 years later, Nixon could have detente with China, but Eisenhower could only get a ceasefire with China.
yes you are correct in the sequence -hence my post "gone are nay chances for detente"
I dont even know when Ukraine will stop being a hot war
NATO has 946 million citizens, and 3.3 million active troops, or 3,500 troops for every million citizens. Russia has 145 million citizens, and 1.4 million active troops, or 9,700 troops for every million citizens. North Korea has 26 million citizens, and 1.3 million active troops, or 50,000 troops for every million citizens.
So in absolute numbers, NATO has a bigger military, in terms of how militarized the society is, NATO is the least militarized. The same is even more true about military spending. NATO has to spend thousands of times as much as North Korea, but a lot less of the NATO economies is dedicated to military spending. Many NATO nations are having trouble hitting 2% of GDP, where North Korea is at 24%... And given that the military takes a lot of production without paying for it, is much actually much higher.
On the spectrum of how militarized places are, NATO is several times less militarized than Russia, and North Korea is hyper-militarized. Ukraine is also becoming hyper-militarized. When a country is invaded, and is fighting for its survival, it becomes hyper-militarized. So I withdrawal my original statement that nothing in Europe is "hyper-militarized". No NATO nation is "hyper-militarized".
The Cold War was not a shooting war. We did not have detente with the Chinese while we were fighting them in Korea.
The first step, way before detente is a ceasefire. Everyone is trying to find Putin an offramp to get a ceasefire, but there is a problem. A ceasefire would mean that Russian troops would begin going home (if only to be replaced with new Russian troops). That means they would begin telling people back home how badly Putin failed. A ceasefire might be the end of Putin.
You cannot have a lowering of tensions towards a more stable peace while there is a hot war. There is no peace for detente to make more stable.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it best, "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."
Paul Begala, "Politics is show business for ugly people."
Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
As a general rule, they will have one thousand or less troops from one side, and the rest from the other side. They also have separate war games where they practice for war against one another. The Chinese-Russian border is not the US-Canadian border. It is a highly militarized border.
There is little chance that the USA would be able to land tanks in China. US tanks could conceivably move through North Korea, and attack China, but that is far fetched. Indian tanks would have a hard time getting over the Himalayan; a Sino-Indian war would not be fought with tanks. There are tens of thousands of Russian tanks poised on the Chinese border, so that is the main reason China has developed tanks.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it best, "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."
Paul Begala, "Politics is show business for ugly people."
Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
Support for joining NATO is about 70%, and their form of government does not require a referendum on every treaty question. Joining NATO is easily undone. If the Finns disagree with joining NATO, they can elect politicians that would withdraw them from NATO. It could all be done in a few days after a new government came to office.
Should Putin have had a referendum before invading Ukraine?
Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it best, "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."
Paul Begala, "Politics is show business for ugly people."
Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
The PLA’s land army is the world’s largest standing ground force with 915,000 active-duty troops,
almost twice the US figure of 486,000 personnel, according to the Pentagon’s 2020 China Military Power
with that many you have to have all phases of land army.
And they could go Afghan - but China always relies on soft power first.
There are no war games of Russia v China anymore on the border anymore.
Russia and China are going to have tanks on a border, there was an
agreement to have the same amount
https://nuke.fas.org/control/mrmfba/index.html
just as NATO has them across Europe - even though the potential of war with Russia is zilch
The USA had 1.4 million active troops, and China has 2.2 million active troops. I think you are quoting army sizes, but I would assume the Marines, Navy, and Air Force would be involved in any war.
Both numbers are highly misleading. The USA could never put all their troops against China (unless China invaded the USA), but also the USA would never go to war with China alone. There would be millions of other troops from allied militaries. Both sides would call up reserves, so both sides would have millions more troops.
There is no obvious land battle location, and most of the less obvious land battle locations would not include many tanks.
Both the Russians and the Chinese have highly militarized their border. There are tens of thousands of tanks poised on either side of the border, ready to start a war. They are all training constantly.
A war between Russia and China would involve tanks. It is actually a good terrain for tanks.
The Europeans do not agree with you. That becomes stronger and stronger the further east you go. The Baltic Countries are absolutely terrified. Fighting off a potential Russian invasion is the main reason Europeans have tanks.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it best, "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."
Paul Begala, "Politics is show business for ugly people."
Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
" First they came for the journalists...
We don't know what happened after that . "
Maria Ressa.
" First they came for the journalists...
We don't know what happened after that . "
Maria Ressa.
walt;
All war is failure. US vets told us how America failed- and America actually lost. Russia isn't losing- so your theory has no legs.A ceasefire would mean that Russian troops would begin going home (if only to be replaced with new Russian troops). That means they would begin telling people back home how badly Putin failed.
" First they came for the journalists...
We don't know what happened after that . "
Maria Ressa.
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
Bookmarks