Europe being Finlandized via Germany and France?

[Kuciwalker]

Re: their navy:

As of 2006, The Russian Navy has 50 atomic submarines, compared to 170 vessels in 1991, but only 26 of them are in operation now. The Navy plans to reduce the number to 20 submarines, 10 missile submarines of the strategic purpose and 10 multi-purpose atomic vessels, under unofficial reports.[10]

As an example.

[Kuciwalker]

The economic statistics are trivial to look up. I admit I don't have a source on the "starving" bit (that was from memory of various news sources), but wiki again doesn't have much good to say about the current state of affairs of their army.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
The economic statistics are trivial to look up. I admit I don't have a source on the "starving" bit (that was from memory of various news sources),

Was it this one?

[Kuciwalker]

No, but that's another good example of why Russia just isn't very important and will be even less so in the future.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
There's no reason to believe they could launch a crippling first strike even if they could have during the Cold War.

Except for this one. And this one.

[Nubclear]

Kuci is trying to troll me.
I must resist.

[LordShiva]

Besides, if it were the case that Russia's soldiers were starving and their navy no longer seaworthy, it's even more imperative for Putin to maintain his first-strike capability. With his "burgeoning military-industrial complex", 15,000 warheads, and flood of oil revenue, it wouldn't be particularly hard to do.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually I'm not

xpost

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Besides, if it were the case that Russia's soldiers were starving and their navy no longer seaworthy, it's even more imperative for Putin to maintain his first-strike capability. With his "burgeoning military-industrial complex", 15,000 warheads, and flood of oil revenue, it wouldn't be particularly hard to do.

Note that they are then reduced from a nuclear triad to a single offensive system. (I don't think they could launch a crippling first strike with air power without Stealth.) And they have an upper bound on the size of their ballistic missile forces through START.

[notyoueither]

Where does that say anything about a single offensive system?

Are you really one of America's best and brightest? If so, God help us all.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Where does that say anything about a single offensive system?

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
They have an upper bound on the size of their ballistic missile forces through START.

Plus, if they have enough nukes for a crippling first strike then they have enough to overcome any defensive system would could build.

[notyoueither]

The US is also limited by START.

However, START means ****. Both the US and Russia are left with enough firepower to eliminate any semblance of civilization on the planet.

And once again, the fact they can overwhelm any defence system is not the point. The point is making a heavily armed rival feel they are isolated and being backed into a corner. That is an incredibly stupid thing to do if you want to avoid escalating the possibility of very loud booms.

[notyoueither]

And you still haven't explained where you got the 'single offensive sytem' other than out of your ass.

[notyoueither]

And you haven't explained why Putin would tell the truth and abide by START after the US unilaterally repudiated the ABM treaty.

Are you really such a simpleton?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The US is also limited by START.

Our strategic relevance derives from more than our nuclear arsenal. The same is not true of Russia.

However, START means ****. Both the US and Russia are left with enough firepower to eliminate any semblance of civilization on the planet.

Is it enough firepower to eliminate the opposing side's ability to retaliate before they can retaliate? That's the relevant question. That's when the MAD dynamic changes; when they have less firepower than that, they're really no different from France or the UK or China.

And once again, the fact they can overwhelm any defence system is not the point. The point is making a heavily armed rival feel they are isolated and being backed into a corner. That is an incredibly stupid thing to do if you want to avoid escalating the possibility of very loud booms.

The only possible escalation is to increase their nuclear arsenals (which would include abandoning START). I don't know when you were born, but you seem to be living twenty years ago.