reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Nevertheless, that seems to be the U.S.'s strategy. Reviews of our ability to defend against a homeland attack by an aggressor have put us at below
20% readiness to defend the borders. Who needs to fight the individual invaders, when you can threaten to wipe the invading country off the map?
Similarly, our conventional powers frequently come up short when compared to the state of the art stuff being produced by Russia and China (and even
Europe.) The ability to keep up is clearly there, but for whatever reasons, the drive is not.
Neither country would ever attack us (or each other, or any other country with a massive nuclear stockpile) outright, nor do I think we would attack
them (for the same reason,) so I think our military is just not concerned with fighting a conventional war with them. Otherwise, all of that high-tech
stuff they're "working on" right now would be built by now, instead of canceled (or has it been?)
It's not a matter of being too lazy to compare conventional powers. It's a matter of the point being moot. Even a tactical nuclear weapon being used
by either side would probably spark nuclear holocaust - "MAD," and all that psychopathy. Since nobody wants to be the ruler of a radioactive
wasteland, I just don't see any nuclear powers going to direct war for that reason... at least not the *current* nuclear powers.
Like I said, I think a lot of these projects just get put on the table to provoke a response and make some money for the politicians' golf buddies in