SeigSoloyvov wrote:@John
Why would we fight them in the Pacific?
1. They would try but they would be getting pummels by air power and cruise missiles daily.
2. It's a myth our weapons need sate to work, a couple do sure but a vast most of it doesn't.
It would also take a Great deal of time to strike the sates and Russia wouldn't be allowed to openly do this for long they also have very limited means of that.
They might get some but they will never get the all.
3. We don't need awacs conduct operations even the they have the range to stay far away and still collect data, we have many other meana of doing this
4. Russian AD Will be hunted down and eliminated again, their AD cannot stop Ukraine fully, it stands no chance against NATO it would take a bit but would be done and these complex launchers are hard to replace not to mention the factories will be targeted right away.
Airfields can be built in short order.
Russia doesn't win this, it's out produced, out manned.
Force NATO into wartime production and are how fast stuff flys off the lines, we have all the resources needed despite fanboys saying otherwise.
The Russians only Chance at winning would be to turtle up and hopefully for them inflict millions upon millions of losses while somehow not having their own forces destroyed
Then hope the public turns on the war.
A Russian/NATO war comes down to attrition and that's a war NATO wins, sure losses Will be immense for both sides but the Russians could not sustain the losses, NATO could
Lmao everything you said is completely wrong
What wartime production
the whole reason the west does not have weapons to send to Ukraine is because Rheinmetal, Scranton Army munitions plant, Lockheed Martin, Diehl just cannot produce enough systems - they don’t have the resources or capacity to do so
Western systems are too bespoke and expensive to mass produce - the west lags behind Russian production by more than 3x in artillery and more than 10x in air defenses and we talk about combined NATO
The only thing that the west produces more of are aircraft - and if there is one thing this conflict proved is that aircraft are not going to last long in range of long range missiles and drones
The west will lose there as they have way more airbases that are easily hit by cruise missiles and ballistic missiles - and little air defenses as Ukraine has proven
None of the wests strike systems will ever be in place to launch a massive salvo at Russia because Russia can easily pick those systems off with hypersonic long range weapons as soon as they come to the front , at best they can snipe at gaps like Ukraine does with one off strikes
But they will take much more damage due to the lack of air defenses again
And again you are wrong with manpower
Russia is the 2nd largest military in the world(with a volunteer force and not even in mobilization mode) , with 1.5 million active duty personnel surpassing the Indian army , US army, and North Korean armies , only China being larger - btw Ukraine is the 6th largest in the world by comparison
It is NATO and the US which does not have the manpower with recruiting shortages , production problems, and lack of equipment
Young westerners aren’t signing up for the military , and that’s in a peacetime ; imagine in an attrition war with tens and hundred of thousands of dead and wounded
Lmao the west wouldn’t last in an attrition war - the only war the west can fight is a proxy war
But as both Ukraine and Israel show, even then the western power projection is lacking
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Arrow
