In Our War Against Russia.

[Stryder50]

Putting economic sanctions against a country and stealing their property might easily be construed as economic warfare. Wake up and smell the napalm Whitehall. NATO and the US brought this action. The record is clear.

When it comes to stealing intellectual property, technology, etc. look towards CCP China as a major front runner in that dept.
That record is far more clear than any delusions you refer to.

 

[Stryder50]

There were probably other forces at play when it came to the breakup of the communist Russian empire than oil. I have heard that much of it having to do with Russia not being able to keep up with our defense spending. Such as with what Reagan was dumping into his "Star Wars' program. But directed energy weapons like the kind that Reagan wanted turned out to be not possible.

USA aid to the Afghani resistance to the Soviets in their country during the 1980s is one final nail in the coffin. The Kremlin had a difficult time explaining the body bags coming home to parents and families.

BTW, recent advances in directed energy weapons, with help from other technology advances of the past few decades, are showing results that such are quite possible as weapons.

 

[Stryder50]

Thr US spends more on war than nearly all other nations combined, while millions of Americans languish in poverty and near poverty, HC and education failing, and infrastructure nationwide falls apart.

Global defence spending soars to new high

You may want to read the content, not just the title. For example, this excerpt;
...
Defence budgets in other countries also grew significantly, such as in Poland, which became the 15th largest defence spender globally in 2024, up from 20th place in 2022. Nonetheless, European growth remained outpaced by uplifts in Russia’s total military expenditure, which grew by 41.9% in real terms to reach an estimated RUB13.1trn (USD145.9bn).

In light of lower domestic input costs and the dominance of domestic production in Russia, it is useful to examine military spending in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms. In purchasing power parity (PPP), Russian total military expenditure reached I$462bn in 2024, exceeding the total for Europe in USD at market exchange rates (MER). The prevalence of US defence materiel in European defence procurement makes conversions to PPP unsuitable. The higher PPP figure explains why Russia is able to fund more extensive military capabilities than MER-based estimates of Russian defence spending would indicate. Furthermore, this is the PPP conversion of total estimable military expenditure in Russia – it does not include the unquantifiable wider defence spending burden that has spread to regional governments, industry and families of personnel. Nonetheless, estimable Russian spending in 2024 still represented the equivalent of 6.7% of GDP – more than double the levels in the years prior to its 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Such spending and associated fiscal pressures are likely to continue into 2025, with identifiable defence spending estimated to reach 7.5% of GDP.
....
Also, your link doesn't show for CCP China which has seen rapid growth percentage and PPP wise in their defense spending. (Many experts worry that CCP China is prepping for starting WWIII.)

A few other factors to consider is that the USA provides better pay and benefits to it's military members than relative to most other nations.

Also, most of the Research and Development - R&D - in new weapons and systems is paid for and done by the USA. Which we often share (no fee) with our allies, and which nations like CCP China steal and thereby reduce their R&D needs.

Then there are technology developments and advances also paid for out of the USA Defense Budget. GPS is a classic that was paid for, deployed, and maintained by the USA, yet the world gets to make use of it (you're welcome). Note though that there is a slight deviation on public GPS grid to restrict accuracy for foreign military applications.

See here for alternate number$;

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time​

 

[Mushroom]

And just to circle back a little bit.

There is a very real geopolitical term that applies here, specifically to one of those countries that recently joined NATO. And that is "Finlandization".

And yes, that specifically refers to Finland. Now Finland has long had issues with both Russia, and the Soviet Union. Not helped that they have been invaded multiple times by the Russians-Soviets. The final outbreak of open warfare between them being the Winter War of 1939-1940.

Now in WWII Finland was nominally neutral, and only had hostilities with the Soviet Union and not the other members of the Allied Powers. But Germany did support Finland in the Winter War. Including allowing volunteers to fight for them, donating weapons to help them, and even allowing Allied nations like the UK and future allied nation the US to travel to Finland unmolested.

And after WWII ended, the Soviets took a highly belligerent stance with Finland. Basically implying that they had actually been a Germany Ally, and unless they did what the Soviets wanted they would invade again and crush them (and with the vastly increased size of the Red Army after WWII that was no hollow threat). And what followed was largely decades of Finland being only nominally independent, in most ways following the orders of Moscow in order to not get swallowed up as a new Soviet Republic like the rest of Eastern Europe.

This is what is known as "Finlandization". Not quite a puppet state, but also not far from being one. The dominant nation never actually taking control, but instead using the threat of force to coerce them to follow what they want done.

Now even during the Cold War when that term was coined, Finland tried to maintain neutrality whenever possible. And for the Soviets, that was actually helpful. As Finland also worked as a good "way point" for goods as well as others (agents) to enter and leave the Soviet Union. If they wanted to order something from a Western nation that they would not send to the Soviets, they would simply have the Fins order it for them. And if they had exports they wanted to send out, they would sell it to Finland who would then resell it to other nations.

But with the collapse of the Soviet Union, "Finlandization" became a thing of the past. The next leaders of Russia did not try to force the nation to do what they wanted, and finally Finland was fully free and able to chart their own course. And for the next three decades, they tried to maintain their previous neutrality, simply no longer doing so at the end of a gun.

But after multiple cases of Russia attacking both allies as well as other neutral nations, they had enough. And they knew that their attempts of neutrality were ultimately worthless in the face of an expansionist nation that would not respect neutrality if it involved territory they wanted to annex. So after more than seven decades, Finland went to the most trustworthy potential alliance they had to protect themselves, NATO.

Now Sweden has also for over half a century tried to remain neutral in geopolitical affairs. After all, probably the closest (to some) that they have ever exported since WWII that could be considered a "weapon" are Abba and Ikea. Yet they also realized like Finland that their neutrality would not protect them if Russia attacked them. So they also joined NATO.

All the whines and cries about "NATO Aggression" and "NATO Expansion" are realized to be nothing more than whining and crying when one looks at who has joined NATO. Either countries that for almost half a century were directly under Soviet Occupation and abuse so had no trust in the "New Russia", or nations that for almost a century insisted repeatedly they were going to remain neutral in affairs like this, but were scared out of that stance by the aggression of Russia towards their neighbors.

If Russia had never attacked Ukraine twice in a decade, I have no doubt that both of those nations would still be neutral, and not the newest members of NATO. With another nation having asked to join the organization and one other on the path to becoming a member. That is 5 nations either joining NATO or wanting to join since the Russians started attacking their neighbors.

And how many have joined the CIS or CSTO? None, they have been losing members. Members that Russia had actually attacked.

 

[gipper]

You may want to read the content, not just the title. For example, this excerpt;
...
Defence budgets in other countries also grew significantly, such as in Poland, which became the 15th largest defence spender globally in 2024, up from 20th place in 2022. Nonetheless, European growth remained outpaced by uplifts in Russia’s total military expenditure, which grew by 41.9% in real terms to reach an estimated RUB13.1trn (USD145.9bn).

In light of lower domestic input costs and the dominance of domestic production in Russia, it is useful to examine military spending in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms. In purchasing power parity (PPP), Russian total military expenditure reached I$462bn in 2024, exceeding the total for Europe in USD at market exchange rates (MER). The prevalence of US defence materiel in European defence procurement makes conversions to PPP unsuitable. The higher PPP figure explains why Russia is able to fund more extensive military capabilities than MER-based estimates of Russian defence spending would indicate. Furthermore, this is the PPP conversion of total estimable military expenditure in Russia – it does not include the unquantifiable wider defence spending burden that has spread to regional governments, industry and families of personnel. Nonetheless, estimable Russian spending in 2024 still represented the equivalent of 6.7% of GDP – more than double the levels in the years prior to its 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Such spending and associated fiscal pressures are likely to continue into 2025, with identifiable defence spending estimated to reach 7.5% of GDP.
....
Also, your link doesn't show for CCP China which has seen rapid growth percentage and PPP wise in their defense spending. (Many experts worry that CCP China is prepping for starting WWIII.)

A few other factors to consider is that the USA provides better pay and benefits to it's military members than relative to most other nations.

Also, most of the Research and Development - R&D - in new weapons and systems is paid for and done by the USA. Which we often share (no fee) with our allies, and which nations like CCP China steal and thereby reduce their R&D needs.

Then there are technology developments and advances also paid for out of the USA Defense Budget. GPS is a classic that was paid for, deployed, and maintained by the USA, yet the world gets to make use of it (you're welcome). Note though that there is a slight deviation on public GPS grid to restrict accuracy for foreign military applications.

See here for alternate number$;

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time​

I suppose you deny that the US war budget exceeds all other nations and is so large, it exceeds nearly all other nations combined. To say nothing of the billions spent no one knows about.

After all that has occurred since 9/11, you support this. Trillions wasted while millions of Americans suffer, to say nothing of the millions of people murdered and maimed, and nations destroyed.

THINK!

 

[Stryder50]

I suppose you deny that the US war budget exceeds all other nations and is so large, it exceeds nearly all other nations combined. To say nothing of the billions spent no one knows about.

After all that has occurred since 9/11, you support this. Trillions wasted while millions of Americans suffer, to say nothing of the millions of people murdered and maimed, and nations destroyed.

THINK!

Sorry Komrade, but I don't support your treasonous betrayal seeking to destroy the USA.
Go back to the CCP China where you belong.

BTW, it's clear you have no concept on the Federal Budget, DoD portion, or history of the Federal Deficit and Debt.

 

[gipper]

Sorry Komrade, but I don't support your treasonous betrayal seeking to destroy the USA.
Go back to the CCP China where you belong.

BTW, it's clear you have no concept on the Federal Budget, DoD portion, or history of the Federal Deficit and Debt.

So dumb. Lol.

 

[Deadstick]

I don't mind you asking but you don't have to.

I may have misunderstood your point, sorry for that.

 

[Highlight]

It was a great many things, a lot of it indirectly related to that. But also what that spending was spent on.

A lot of people to this day are still confused as to what "Star Wars" (SDI) actually was. They all seem to believe it was about "Space Lasers", but it never was. Never. Even from day 1, the main goal was to use kinetic kill vehicles to destroy inbound missiles.



But that is kind of hard to actually show in an animatic, so people would watch them and think they are talking about lasers. And even though they very clearly said "kinetic energy weapons" at 30 seconds into the above video, most people thought it was using lasers.

And in their desire to keep up, the Soviets sunk billions into high energy laser weapons. Which gave them a return of almost nothing. They had their own competing "SDI" program, that over 4 decades later has given them nothing in return for all of that investment.

Meanwhile, almost all of the US research went into things like the GPS system. And kinetic kill weapons that are the backbone for the modern PATRIOT system, THAAD, GBI, and the modern SM series of Naval missiles. Oh, the US still does research into Laser weapons, but notice it is almost a sideshow, nothing has ever gone operational.

Even more of the spending itself, it is what that spending was aimed at and resulted in. The US actually has gotten decades of advances both in the military and civilian sectors. GPS, modern satellite communications, XM radio and DirecTV, the advances in packet transmissions, all of that is based on the foundations of "Star Wars" research. The Soviets pretty much threw all of their money into a black hole that had no application for civilians.

That is a funny thing about the mindsets in the two countries. In the Soviet Union-Russia, they only thought of the end result weapon. Nothing else mattered, and any such research was so aimed at only that goal, they "could not see the forest through the trees".

Meanwhile, in the US such research was a joint Government-Corporate affair. And the corporate side was always looking at their advances and thinking "Gee, what can we do with this in order to sell it to everyday people?".

DirecTV and XM radio spun off of an early Hughes program to provide satellite communications on the battlefield. Their project was only unidirectional, but was key for an SDI era alert system. First to ground bases (DirecTV), then to mobile units (XM Radio). But in both of those, the ground locations could only receive and not transmit. They even worked out a work-around, allowing the remote locations to respond over POTS (phone system), so communication became bi-directional but response slower.

Hughes adapted that to civilian use, and that became "DirecPC".

But in the Soviet Union, absolutely no thought was ever given to improving the lives of the citizens above the absolute minimum. That is why almost their entire culture in the 1980s still looked like it had been frozen in time since the 1950s. As computer ownership in the US was approaching 50%, in the Soviet Union it was under 5%, with the majority still made by hobbyists with castoff parts like it had been in the US two decades earlier.

The most advanced "Dial-Up" service in the Soviet Union in 1991 was RELCOM, founded in 1990. And it had a whopping 20,000 users. Meanwhile, in the US CompuServe was founded in 1969. And in 1991 it had over 2 million users. AOL had over 3 million members in 1991.

Why? Because such things were simply not important in the Soviet Union. Nothing to the people, everything to the state.

The "Star Wars" program was about things like missiles and various kinds of lasers.

 

[Highlight]

Yes and that's a good starting point.

I wouldn't put it that way.
But from the beginning the other side has shown that they possess superior weapons. That poses a problem for US aircraft carriers and so far there's been no solution.

I wouldn't try heaping any blame on Hegseth and company. The military has experts that make decisions. Even Trumps will be following instructions. Reality! ]/b]

We can at least think that Triump could be tailoring the military to only meet its needs. That is, somewhat less aggression throughout the world and emphasis on defense.

I realize that's what Trump and his people want you to believe, but may not be true.

Let's go back to the beginning. The war is against Russia and America can't afford to lose the war to Russia. That eventually means that America is going to concede the driver's seat to the Brics alliance if Russia isn't defeated.

Trump appears to have got the message and isn't interfering in a serious way lately. We'll have to wait and see?

Are you an American? You seem to have figured it out!

I wouldn't say Russia has superior weapons. But they have one that seems to be above par. They have been using it on Americans for some time. By now, I would imagine that the defense department has come up with a relatively cheap device that can detect any kind of microwave or ultrasonic directed energy weapons. Next, as long as we have a strong military, the U.S. doesn't have to concede anything to anybody. And yes, I am an American.

 

[Highlight]

It's not a matter of this;
"And for those stupid enough to require me to prove what I say, here it is."

Rather a case of you have no credentials to be taken as an expert or truthful.
For that matter most of us are similar, going by usernames here.

Also, there is an SOP, that claims presented as "fact" need to be documented and substantiated for validation and cross checking purposes. Otherwise for all any of us can know, the poster is just blowing smoke up arses

No credentials are required for anything. Either what I have to say is true or it isn't. And i always try to speak the truth.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How is Bush's Global War Of Terror protecting the US? It ain't, never has, never will. All it does is urinate on the US Constitution and make profits for Zionists and war profiteers.

No, Bush wasn't "protecting" the US, he was "enriching" the US.

 

[gipper]

No, Bush wasn't "protecting" the US, he was "enriching" the US.

No. Enriching weapons manufacturers with kickbacks to the two crime families.

 

[Stryder50]

No credentials are required for anything. Either what I have to say is true or it isn't. And i always try to speak the truth.

They are required if you want me and many others here to take a newbie like you seriously.
Nearly all liars claim they speak the truth.

Major issue which went over your head was the insulting phrase:
" "And for those stupid enough to require me to prove what I say, here it is." "

It's a matter of credibility and validation, and you're starting off on the wrong foot in that regard.
Keep digging the hole deeper and you'll become more of a joke.

 

[Stryder50]

The "Star Wars" program was about things like missiles and various kinds of lasers.

It was about anti-ICBM systems and defense against such.
Kinetic weapons systems were also under consideration, along with ABMs, direct energy devices, etc.

 

[Mushroom]

The "Star Wars" program was about things like missiles and various kinds of lasers.

No, it says quite clearly at 30 seconds in "Kinetic energy weapons". What, do you honestly think that is some kind of LASER because "energy" is part of the description?

The goal of SDI was always kinetic kill weapons. That is what Raytheon had in prototype in 1990 when the gulf war started. Where they had the software in beta testing, but had yet to design or build an actual missile. Like GEM or the later PAC-3.

Now were "nuclear powered x-ray LASERs" part of the initial project? Yes, but never the main part. And that aspect was completely killed way back in 1987 when Project Excalibur was a bust. But the cornerstone was always kinetic kill weapons.

And yes, missiles of course. What do you think a kinetic kill weapon is? What do you think PATRIOT GEM-T and PAC-3 is? THAAD? GBI? SM-3? They are all kinetic kill weapons, the missile is how they get it to the target.

As opposed to other systems like HAWK, PATRIOT PAC-2 and GEM-C, and SM-2. All of which attempt to kill their target via close proximity explosions.

 

[Mushroom]

By now, I would imagine that the defense department has come up with a relatively cheap device that can detect any kind of microwave or ultrasonic directed energy weapons.

Oh holy hell, one of those.

Most "Directed Energy Weapons" are defensive systems that are being tested as a form of missile defense system. Their use against anything else would be not only ineffective, but prohibitively expensive. Plus against humans, the effects would be negligible. Trust me there, I have been directly in front of a 500 kW RADAR. That is literally "microwave energy". And even at 500 kW, I only felt a tad warmer on the side facing the RADAR. Unless you are going to be pumping out energy in the ranges of gW and more and manage to get the targets to stand absolutely still for you, that is absolutely worthless as an anti-personnel weapon.

However, as can be seen by putting a metallic item in a microwave oven, it is good at messing up electronics. So long as they had not done something like engineer a Faraday Cage around those electronics. Which just so happens to be something the military typically does.

LASERs have the same problem (large amounts of power), in addition to suffering from multiple other problems that are likely unresolvable. Like thermal blooming.

That leaves sonic, like the Long Range Acoustic Device and other "sonic weapons". That is really only effective in matters of crowd control, not as an actual weapon. It does not incapacitate anybody, but it is effective in driving away untrained civilians.

You know, the kinds of people who are not armed. Using it on actual soldiers? They would instantly start shooting at the source because it has to be in direct line of sight of the target.

 

[longly]

It is my perception and opinion that Ronald Reagan's Star Wars dream for America, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), is slowly coming true. It is somewhat a reality now, but I believe that in the next generation or two, with advancements in artificial intelligence, it will fully come to fruition. At that point, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) will be almost totally neutralized, thanks to Reagan's vision. Does anybody else feel that way?

 

[Mushroom]

It is my perception and opinion that Ronald Reagan's Star Wars dream for America, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), is slowly coming true. It is somewhat a reality now, but I believe that in the next generation or two, with advancements in artificial intelligence, it will fully come to fruition. At that point, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) will be almost totally neutralized, thanks to Reagan's vision. Does anybody else feel that way?

Well, forget about AI, that is a no-go.

And it has been true for decades now. PATRIOT in the 1990s, GBI since the early 2000s, and SM-3 since 2014.

All that would need to be involved would be to make the decision and spend the money to deploy AEGIS Ashore in the US as has been done in Poland and Romania.

We have been able to do it for over a decade now. All that is lacking is the political will to do it.

 

[Zavulon]

And just to circle back a little bit.

There is a very real geopolitical term that applies here, specifically to one of those countries that recently joined NATO. And that is "Finlandization".

And yes, that specifically refers to Finland. Now Finland has long had issues with both Russia, and the Soviet Union. Not helped that they have been invaded multiple times by the Russians-Soviets. The final outbreak of open warfare between them being the Winter War of 1939-1940.

Now in WWII Finland was nominally neutral, and only had hostilities with the Soviet Union and not the other members of the Allied Powers. But Germany did support Finland in the Winter War. Including allowing volunteers to fight for them, donating weapons to help them, and even allowing Allied nations like the UK and future allied nation the US to travel to Finland unmolested.

And after WWII ended, the Soviets took a highly belligerent stance with Finland. Basically implying that they had actually been a Germany Ally, and unless they did what the Soviets wanted they would invade again and crush them (and with the vastly increased size of the Red Army after WWII that was no hollow threat). And what followed was largely decades of Finland being only nominally independent, in most ways following the orders of Moscow in order to not get swallowed up as a new Soviet Republic like the rest of Eastern Europe.

This is what is known as "Finlandization". Not quite a puppet state, but also not far from being one. The dominant nation never actually taking control, but instead using the threat of force to coerce them to follow what they want done.

Now even during the Cold War when that term was coined, Finland tried to maintain neutrality whenever possible. And for the Soviets, that was actually helpful. As Finland also worked as a good "way point" for goods as well as others (agents) to enter and leave the Soviet Union. If they wanted to order something from a Western nation that they would not send to the Soviets, they would simply have the Fins order it for them. And if they had exports they wanted to send out, they would sell it to Finland who would then resell it to other nations.

But with the collapse of the Soviet Union, "Finlandization" became a thing of the past. The next leaders of Russia did not try to force the nation to do what they wanted, and finally Finland was fully free and able to chart their own course. And for the next three decades, they tried to maintain their previous neutrality, simply no longer doing so at the end of a gun.

But after multiple cases of Russia attacking both allies as well as other neutral nations, they had enough. And they knew that their attempts of neutrality were ultimately worthless in the face of an expansionist nation that would not respect neutrality if it involved territory they wanted to annex. So after more than seven decades, Finland went to the most trustworthy potential alliance they had to protect themselves, NATO.

Now Sweden has also for over half a century tried to remain neutral in geopolitical affairs. After all, probably the closest (to some) that they have ever exported since WWII that could be considered a "weapon" are Abba and Ikea. Yet they also realized like Finland that their neutrality would not protect them if Russia attacked them. So they also joined NATO.

All the whines and cries about "NATO Aggression" and "NATO Expansion" are realized to be nothing more than whining and crying when one looks at who has joined NATO. Either countries that for almost half a century were directly under Soviet Occupation and abuse so had no trust in the "New Russia", or nations that for almost a century insisted repeatedly they were going to remain neutral in affairs like this, but were scared out of that stance by the aggression of Russia towards their neighbors.

If Russia had never attacked Ukraine twice in a decade, I have no doubt that both of those nations would still be neutral, and not the newest members of NATO. With another nation having asked to join the organization and one other on the path to becoming a member. That is 5 nations either joining NATO or wanting to join since the Russians started attacking their neighbors.

And how many have joined the CIS or CSTO? None, they have been losing members. Members that Russia had actually attacked.

Bla-bla-bla. For Finland neutral status meant additional money in peace time, and additional safety during potential war. Right now, as NATO memeber they are losing significant money in peace, and, in the case of war - they are going to lose much higher percent of their population (up to 90%).
We know it, the Finns know it. Nobody wants to lose money and people, therefore they were forced to do it.
May be, US or EU leadership suggested Finnish leadership good money (and corrupted Finnish/Sweden governments just sold their people as cattle to the slaughter). May be, they threatened them with something.
The fact is, that nobody has asked Finnish and Sweden people before making that solution.