They have nukes left over from the Cold War, which, like U.S. nukes, are badly in need of modernization (most worryingly, they have a fair supply of tactical nukes that are more militarily useful as metro area destroying ICBMs don't fit what countries usually want to achieve with their military force). But, they don't have the GDP or industrial capacity and technical competence to support all of the nukes of the entire USSR which Russia inherited, almost all of the Navy of the USSR which Russia inherited, most of the higher end parts of the USSR Air Force which it inherited, and its fair share of the USSR's Army which it inherited, at current levels. Russia also struggles to marshal to active duty personnel it has at a high state of readiness with its smaller economy and population relative to the USSR. Other parts of the former USSR took no nukes, almost none of the USSR's Navy, and only the less advanced parts of the USSR's Air Force, although they did take some lower end USSR Air Force resources and their fair share of the Army stuff.
If Russia doesn't downsize its military it has to make significantly bigger guns v. butter tradeoffs that are already highly strained by the Ukraine War. Decreased foreign cash due to falling oil and gas prices this month will only make it worse and sanctions are slowly but actually starting to take a toll too (forcing it to rely on N. Korea and Iran as its sole foreign military equipment suppliers, as its other former Soviet allies appear to be worthless in this regard, Ukraine was the main defense industry center and it shows). N. Korean military aid and troops aren't really helping all that much, both are lower in quality than the Russian made stuff and modest in quantity. And, of course, the Ukraine War has eaten up maybe 2/3rd to 3/4 of the major military equipment in its ground forces, and has caused massive casualties that it is barely replacing with new green, ill trained and ill equipped conscripts, has greatly degraded the Black Sea fleet within its Navy (which admittedly is a pretty small part of the total), and has made minor dents to its air force resources.
The U.S. has a much larger GDP and a greater industrial capacity, and more technical competence, to support its huge nuclear arsenal, its huge and reasonably modern navy plus a coast guard, and unmatched state of the art large high tech air force, and its reasonably modern and adequate for its size ground troops on a sustainable basis.
U.S. ground forces are solid enough, but they've gotten quite small relative to the U.S. population, are hard to deploy in large numbers quickly, have retreated somewhat from foreign military bases, and have modern but not state of the art military equipment in many specific areas that its catching up on but isn't there yet. The smaller ground force troop numbers also mean that its lost a lot of the seasons expertise and experience of its combat veterans from being in active wars more or less continuously for 20-30 years, as those seasoned veterans have retired to civilian life as it has downsized gradually.
U.S. military spending as a percentage of GDP is on the quite low side in historical terms as it is (despite being by far the largest in the world), and Trump has actually proposed to finance at least his new initiatives with cuts to the existing defense budget despite the fact that it isn't particularly larger relative to GDP.
Pre-Trump, the U.S. could also rely on its historical military allies who are modern and well-trained if much smaller, to supplement its own forces, but this doesn't seem to be the case any more.
2 comments:
But, they do have nukes. Which Illinois does not. Missouri has B-2 bombers which can carry nukes.
They have nukes left over from the Cold War, which, like U.S. nukes, are badly in need of modernization (most worryingly, they have a fair supply of tactical nukes that are more militarily useful as metro area destroying ICBMs don't fit what countries usually want to achieve with their military force). But, they don't have the GDP or industrial capacity and technical competence to support all of the nukes of the entire USSR which Russia inherited, almost all of the Navy of the USSR which Russia inherited, most of the higher end parts of the USSR Air Force which it inherited, and its fair share of the USSR's Army which it inherited, at current levels. Russia also struggles to marshal to active duty personnel it has at a high state of readiness with its smaller economy and population relative to the USSR. Other parts of the former USSR took no nukes, almost none of the USSR's Navy, and only the less advanced parts of the USSR's Air Force, although they did take some lower end USSR Air Force resources and their fair share of the Army stuff.
If Russia doesn't downsize its military it has to make significantly bigger guns v. butter tradeoffs that are already highly strained by the Ukraine War. Decreased foreign cash due to falling oil and gas prices this month will only make it worse and sanctions are slowly but actually starting to take a toll too (forcing it to rely on N. Korea and Iran as its sole foreign military equipment suppliers, as its other former Soviet allies appear to be worthless in this regard, Ukraine was the main defense industry center and it shows). N. Korean military aid and troops aren't really helping all that much, both are lower in quality than the Russian made stuff and modest in quantity. And, of course, the Ukraine War has eaten up maybe 2/3rd to 3/4 of the major military equipment in its ground forces, and has caused massive casualties that it is barely replacing with new green, ill trained and ill equipped conscripts, has greatly degraded the Black Sea fleet within its Navy (which admittedly is a pretty small part of the total), and has made minor dents to its air force resources.
The U.S. has a much larger GDP and a greater industrial capacity, and more technical competence, to support its huge nuclear arsenal, its huge and reasonably modern navy plus a coast guard, and unmatched state of the art large high tech air force, and its reasonably modern and adequate for its size ground troops on a sustainable basis.
U.S. ground forces are solid enough, but they've gotten quite small relative to the U.S. population, are hard to deploy in large numbers quickly, have retreated somewhat from foreign military bases, and have modern but not state of the art military equipment in many specific areas that its catching up on but isn't there yet. The smaller ground force troop numbers also mean that its lost a lot of the seasons expertise and experience of its combat veterans from being in active wars more or less continuously for 20-30 years, as those seasoned veterans have retired to civilian life as it has downsized gradually.
U.S. military spending as a percentage of GDP is on the quite low side in historical terms as it is (despite being by far the largest in the world), and Trump has actually proposed to finance at least his new initiatives with cuts to the existing defense budget despite the fact that it isn't particularly larger relative to GDP.
Pre-Trump, the U.S. could also rely on its historical military allies who are modern and well-trained if much smaller, to supplement its own forces, but this doesn't seem to be the case any more.
Post a Comment