Comparing Military Capabilities of US/Russia/China

[mello]

I whipped this up in photoshop.

[eleganz]

Hey thanks for making this. Does anybody remember Marco saying our airforce is weak or getting weak? Would be nice to have a meme with his quote and this airfare comparison.

[Cutlerzzz]

The Department of Veterans Affairs has a bigger budget than the Russian military.

[Dr. Dog]

The Department of Veterans Affairs has a bigger budget than the Russian military.

The Department of Education has a bigger budget than the Russian Military.

[LifeLibertyPursuit]

Mello, I hope you do not mind that I used your Photoshop creation in my thread in another forum to educate the masses.



http://www.carolinahuddle.com/boards...t-say-no-kids/

[mello]

No prob.

[dusman]

I whipped this up in photoshop.

This is great. However, I would point out you're missing one of the most important military capabilities, which is air defense. When we talk about the air force and naval shrinkage, it is largely because we have been exchanging air force and carrier capabilities with missile defense.

Much of the tension between US and Russian relations revolve around missile defense and for good reason. Missile defense prevents most scenarios the older generations fear so much. ICBM/IRBM capabilities are neutralized by missile defense.

We are substantially more battle-ready from this standpoint, with systems providing coverage worldwide. This is why Russia pushes back so much on our missile defense in Europe and Eurasia.

[TheNewYorker]

We spend more on our military than next 19 countries combined.

We could cut our spending in half, and still spend more than the next 5 countries combined. 4 of those 5 are allies.

[LifeLibertyPursuit]

I whipped this up in photoshop.

We spend more on our military than next 19 countries combined.

We could cut our spending in half, and still spend more than the next 5 countries combined. 4 of those 5 are allies.

I love that graph (http://www.carolinahuddle.com/boards...t-say-no-kids/).

[Foreigner]

Global military power does not equate to the sum of equipment and manpower. It depends on power projection. Logistics: especially large landing craft, supply ships, large transport aircraft - this is the ability to sustain land operations around the world. Then add air support, which means aircraft carriers and global military bases. Only the US has all of this in any significant numbers. In a hypothetical conflict where the US fights both Russia and China in a place that's equally far away from all, say South Africa, Russia and China can supply a combined 30.000 troops of equal quality as the US army. And the US can supply 250.000, before one even begins to add NATO allies. Then add that the US would have total air superiority via it's 11 carriers vs 2 Russian / Chinese ones (which are smaller than US supercarriers). Then add that Russia and China does not have the logistical capabilities to deploy most of its navy, and therefore could only harass, and win limited local naval victories against the US navy. Thus the 30.000 troop they originally could supply will not be supplied, and the US will defeat them without engaging them even. This is true global military power.

True, the US can not invade either Russia or China, because then they could then use their full military power, and the US only 1/3 or 1/4th of its. To gain this ability, the US would have to increase military spending 300-400% and keep it that high for 20 years. that's beyond what the US economy can support without totally stagnating. In that scenario. China would massively overtake the US economy, and the US would have the choice of launching WW3 to maintain dominance or collapse.

[r3volution 3.0]

Nice work guys

The average GOPer out there has no clue how absurdly dominant the US military already is.

Global military power does not equate to the sum of equipment and manpower. It depends on power projection.

Indeed

I've heard hawkish folk worrying about China's 3 million man army.

...to which I politely respond: how far can they swim?

[Jonderdonk]

True, the US can not invade either Russia or China, because then they could then use their full military power, and the US only 1/3 or 1/4th of its. To gain this ability, the US would have to increase military spending 300-400% and keep it that high for 20 years. that's beyond what the US economy can support without totally stagnating. In that scenario. China would massively overtake the US economy, and the US would have the choice of launching WW3 to maintain dominance or collapse.

The important thing to note here is that this goes both ways. Not only do Russia and China have vastly inferior deployment capabilities, but the American citizenry is armed to the teeth. A takeover of the US homeland by a foreign power could simply not happen.

[TheTexan]

We spend more on our military than next 19 countries combined.

We could cut our spending in half, and still spend more than the next 5 countries combined. 4 of those 5 are allies.

It's a shame we spend so much money on our military and don't even attempt really to expand our empire much. I mean we bomb terrorists all the time, but when was the last time we conquered a nation and officially declared it ours?

We need a 51st state. It has been too long.

[FSP-Rebel]

Is there a link for this or is this like a wiki write-up/pic? Not sayin I don't believe it, just wanted back up if I were to use this elsewhere.

[Kurt Evans]

Is there a link for this or is this like a wiki write-up/pic? Not sayin I don't believe it, just wanted back up if I were to use this elsewhere.

I'm pretty sure it's outdated:
https://d1jn4vzj53eli5.cloudfront.net/mc/jsullum/2015_11/military-spending-2014-SIPRI.png?h=400&w=600
https://reason.com/blog/2015/11/11/memo-to-rubio-we-already-spend-far-more

Same URLs (parsed, clickable):
https://d1jn4vzj53eli5.cloudfront.ne...ng?h=400&w=600
https://reason.com/blog/2015/11/11/m...spend-far-more

[FindLiberty]

Don't go soft estimating Mil Capabilities.

Don't chance it, no sir!

Why not just BRING IT ON and get it over with?
Civilians and infrastructure, no holds (or holes) barred.

Is there any better way to PROVE whether ALL of those
old offensive systems and weapons still work properly?

The defense systems can be tested too, first against the
older weapons, and then towards the end, the newest
ones in the final battles of the last days. Find out if
there were enough left over for the last-minute counter-attack?

Just relax and enjoy that nice Chinese Sun Burn.

Discover the horrors the US and Russians dreamed up
for each other.

See if they blink when we call their bluff...

Conversation snippets from the Command and Control Center:

With the power out for good, how long 'till we get back
YouTube.... Oh, that stuff runs on the power too?

How effective is it? What's the ACTUAL yield without all the
marketing hype on those glossy spec sheets?

Will those vaccinations work? Do we still have enough
K's and Cipro on hand for the remaining continuity of gov
team (after that unfortunate pill-counting error and resulting
culling incident at the bunker doors)? What a bunch wimps!

Wait, how bad are those side effects again? Oh, okay.

Say, did those YO-YOs ever deliver that tri-wing bomber?
What a SNFU! WHO cancelled it?

Should the launch-on-warning include everything
all at once like that, or is it "safer" to hold some back?
Okay, cut the attitude, "SMARTER" to hold some back.

Well look at that, I though we banned those...

[TomtheTinker]

http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison.asp


Compare any 2 countries military power by the numbers.

[TheTexan]

I'm pretty sure it's outdated:
https://d1jn4vzj53eli5.cloudfront.ne...ng?h=400&w=600
https://reason.com/blog/2015/11/11/m...spend-far-more

Same URLs (parsed, clickable):
https://d1jn4vzj53eli5.cloudfront.ne...ng?h=400&w=600
https://reason.com/blog/2015/11/11/m...spend-far-more

America is #1... by a huge margin.

$#@! ya