Politics

[Hunt anything]

Trump and Rubio will probably do something like that.. Denying acces the US to bases and airspace was an idiotic move..

This wasn’t the first time Spain has denied the USAF use of airspace, they denied our F-111’s fly over rights to bomb Libya back in 1986.

 

[jeanes]

You seem to forget that Sweden and Finland joined NATO.. If the US leave it will probably end up being used by Britain, Sweden and Norway to fly sortees in and around the Baltic Sea to deter Russia..Canada also express a will to close more in on Europe..

Cost will be shared within NATO.

Britain, Sweden, Finland and you folks have fielded formidable militaries in the past and I have no doubt you could do it again. My worry is that, with the world seemingly becoming more dangerous, there won't be enough time to adequately meet the challenges we will all face unless we all recognize the threats and take the required steps to counter them. If the U.S. were to withdraw from anything I would prefer it to be the U.N.

 

[Hogpatrol]

The Klan was formed by the left to scare and suppress the blacks.
Now the Democrats buy black votes. Go figure.
Blacks who vote Democrat are still slaves to the plantation owners, they just don't realize it.

Minorities have been fooled since LBJ started the War On Poverty. The Democrats are the new slave masters and the plantation has Section 8 housing, food stamps, welfare and free phones. You just have to vote the way the Master tells you to continue living on it. It boggles my mind they haven't figured it out.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

Aside from that each member pays for its own military forces, which make up the vast majority of NATO’s total resources. And here the US share is obviously the biggest, thats simply because your military budget is so much higher then anybody elses.

I appreciate you answering but I don’t see how you can ignore the significance of this part I’ve quoted. Including our indirect spending, the US contributes 62% of NATO’s total spending on defense.

The risk that the US military will come down on an aggressor in response to article 5, is the deterrent. The American carriers, the air power, the ICBM’s and sub missiles are all part of the NATO deterrent. Even if you believe Trump only has a 50/50 chance of sending them, that’s a whole lot more persuasive than 0%.

I suggest that you will never be able to fill that gap. I heard interviews with Germans who didn’t want to ramp up munitions production to aid Ukraine or for their own defense because it could cut into social program spending. I seriously doubt that the bigger NATO nations would be willing to front the real cost of replacing the US military in the alliance and the only real winner would be Putin.

 

[Killingtime]

to provide perspective.. the US can produce +/- 19,000 missiles per year across all major platforms without actually ramping up production.. this would include tomahawks, GMLRS, ATACMS, etc..

we've currently launched +/- 1800 various missiles in the 6 weeks of fighting.. so call that an "average" of 1200 a month.. so.. we're currently expending at a lower rate (14,400) a year than we can manufacture..

granted thats very fuzzy and generalized math... some systems take more time and energy than others.. so at the end of the year, without getting into details that shouldnt be put out on a public hunting forum, we have the ability to have MORE munitions on hand than we had before the war started.. and less on hand of other muntions types..

The concern isnt that the US will run out of munitions.. if we ramp up production we can WAY exceed what we need in a matter of just a few months..

The concern is how much is in theater, how is it stockpiled, how do you get it to the weapons systems that launch them, etc..etc.. without making them vulnerable..

any "pause" in fighting will be used to replenish those stockpiles..

Which is something Iran is finding increasingly harder and harder to do since much of its manufacturing capability has been destroyed and many of its launch systems have been destroyed..

a "pause" can be a major advantage to the US... other than getting a bit of a breather from the fighting, its not nearly as much of an advantage for the Iranians..

I’d heard on a podcast that I believe general milley had voiced concerns of us using China for certain necessary components to make missles awhile back. Would that affect those numbers or output?

 

[mark-hunter]

You will have to explain to me what they represent to US force other than targets.

Dear red leg,
I have to thank you for your responses, as I consider you an expert on weapons and tactics without equal on this forum.
I find it to be privileged in allowing me in this meaningful conversation.

So:
In any war, there are targets - we agree on that? And any side can get hit.

For example an awacs was hit parked on tarmac, and as per pictures availake on internet it seams it was hit exactly in radar dome, cutting the fuselage by 2 thirds forward, 1 third aft.

This was not supposed to happen and to me this indicates the failure of defense systems, for whatever reason.
Either patriots missing the incoming projectile, or ammunition being depleted and not reloaded, or early warning radar system has been destroyed just before
(I hope I use the correct terms)

We have also established, based on your earlier comment, that the proxies will have lesser capabilities than the major powers who support them.
We agree on that too?

So what Russia has to offer except being a target? Maybe nothing, but is not as simple as it sounds.

Now, as you are the expert on weapons and tactics, which I am not, I will have to go from big picture down.
Russia, will always offer the targets.

USA is main, top 1, global offensive power able to project power anywhere in the world within a short time frame.
Special forces deployed within 24 hours anywhere in the world, and any missile delivered with any warhead within a flight time.

Russia (still ranked as no 2 global power) is major defensive power.
Those two to compare, is like comparing apples and oranges.

It also means, any eventual conflict will not be on some Pacific island, where US will have full advantage, but most probably on Russian soil, thus becoming a target.
Upon which, they will offer some response.

Does Russia win every war? No.
Does USA win every war? No. (even with medium sized country)

So, far they have been very careful not to launch any assault, at any nato country and invoke article 5.
But as I said earlier, why should they?

They do not need territory, being largest country in the world, they do not need resources since they have them, including the new frontier - arctic.

So, what is left is their security concerns, on which they historically react.
Basically, how I see it, they would prefer not to have nato missiles too close to their borders, with perspective that in the future those missiles will be hypersonic.

In case of such conflict, being targeted and hit, most likely they will engage in conventional missiles attacks to Nato bases across the Europe. All bases are within range.
Once attacked, article 5, damn it, lets have it, thats what I think will be their reasoning

The latest capabiltiy they have shown is Oreshnik, allegedly hypersonic, 6x6 warheads, total 36 warheads per missile. Twice launched, twice hit Ukranian targets.
Press silenced about this and its effects, which is very unusual for MSM.
Allegedly they used dummy warheads, pure kinetic energy. They must had a reason for this.
(your insight on this would be welcome)

I have no idea how many of those they have, but give it some time, they will accumulate enough.
Till then they will supplement with whatever they have, to saturate the sky.
(If Iran - medium sized country - could, why couldnt they?)

Speaking of air defenses, on the opening of conflict in Ukraine, a soviet built drone (available both in Ukraine and Russia), flew through nato umbrella, passed few countries and landed in Croatia capital without warhead.
if that could pass few countries, most likely Oreshnik can pass too.
It is still officially unknown who launched that, Ukrainians or Russians.

Generally speaking what I am seeing this would be Iran - Persian gulf scenario, for which we have not seen proper defenses as yet.

But with Russia I see this scenario potentially on much larger scale

That would be initial missile exchange.
After that what happens?

After the first bomb falls, policies change. on both sides. And for this, I have no idea how far escalation ladder will go up.
But the risk of nuclear exchange is too high, to be acceptable, especially if the Russians find themselves in existential treat

Unlike other European powers, only Russian have full nuclear triad, and developed submarine fleet.
While USA developed carrier groups, they developed submarines.

After missile exchange and bombing campaign, can it turn to conventional invasion by conventional land forces?

I think not.
I am going to use your own estimate few days ago (For America, it is maximum to get to Khaarg island to invade, Invading Iran not an option).
So, full invasion of Iran is not feasible on American side.

If not feasible for Iran, smaller country, most probably will not be feasible for Russia either.

Using conventional Nato forces (if nato allies would like to join the party under article 5), for Major assault on the front from Baltic to Black sea, I dont see that happening either.
Here across the pond, nobody wants to join the army, and professional armies most likely will not be sufficient for large scale assault on that size of front.
Europe is demilitarized culturally. Draft is not legally possible.

So, most likely any such conflict without boots on the ground will remain on bombing and missile exchange, and only that will not change regime, or change the things, while in the same time will bring tremendous destruction on both sides, which really is not required.
Iran tough to crack, for last 47 years?
How about Russia?

Hitting targets is always welcome.
But was it America that won every battle, and lost Vietnam war, when domestic political circumstances changed?

And now we are in the middle of geo political global changes witnessing things unthinkable till recently.

American stable relations with Russia, as security strategy. That was the first shock to European allies, in the middle of Ukrainian war who portraits Russia as arch enemy of western civilistion.

American aspirations to Greenland, against every European interest (Denmark), 2nd shock to allies?

Banning US forces from using bases for Iran war effort by UK Spain, Italy, etc including Diego Garcia, which most probably is critical logistic base for Iran operations, as all others are in Persian gulf within range, and inside the lake with closed Hormuz.
A return shock to USA, I would estimate.
Allies are not supposed to do such things

And in all these situations. launching some action against targets in Russia with perspective of nuclear exchange when push comes to shove?
Just imagine the allied reactions?

Well, the politics run the war.
Its not only hitting the targets.

 

[mdwest]

China is among the worlds largest producers of some key minerals and elements used in defense munitions.. among those are:

Gallium – used in radar, missile seekers, and guidance electronics

Germanium – used in infrared sensors and optics

Antimony – used in explosives, primers, and propellants

Tungsten – used in penetrators and warheads

Tellurium – used in specialized alloys and electronic

That said, China isnt the only producer.. there are alternatives out there.. and we maintain a pretty substantial stockpile of them all.. not enough to last forever.. but plenty to last for a while (intentionally not getting into the details of what "a while" is)..

The bigger concern is China is who much of the world relies on refining those elements.. so even if you are able to source large quantities of tungsten elsewhere for example, there are limited refineries around the globe to process it for you..

Although (again, without saying too much).. that is pretty rapidly being corrected..

 

[Pondoro]

Norway has the largest found deposit of REE minerals..in Europe

Om sjeldne jordarter - Fensfeltet

Sjeldne jordarter spiller allerede en viktig rolle i ditt og mitt liv, og vil få stor betydning for utviklingen framover.

fensfeltet.no

 

[mdwest]

None of the elements listed are rare earth…

That said, Norway does have europium and a couple of other rare earths that are part of laser development, missile guidance, and radar systems (very important to defense) and other rare earths that are important to battery development and other things)..

The US also has those same particular elements with substantial deposits found in both California and Wyoming and smaller deposits elsewhere..

 

[deewayne2003]

Minorities have been fooled since LBJ started the War On Poverty. The Democrats are the new slave masters and the plantation has Section 8 housing, food stamps, welfare and free phones. You just have to vote the way the Master tells you to continue living on it. It boggles my mind they haven't figured it out.

Oh believe me, check out some YouTube channels hosted by black men and you’ll see they are most definitely more than catching on.

Videos abound of leftists yellowing all manner of slurs at black men wearing MAGA hats; those videos then go viral and have triggered a contagious awakening.

Then NYC & Especially Chicago doubled down on the idiocy and welcomed illegal immigrants with welcome arms and hotel rooms while American citizens have been waiting years for public housing.
This man is worth listening to….its short

These 3 young black men started their channel in a dorm room and made into a well paying business; their videos got the attention of Charley Kirk and he flew them out to a rally.

 

[Pondoro]

Back to Iran..

In its latest comprehensive assessment from May 2025, the IAEA said it had lost “continuity of knowledge” about Iran’s uranium stockpile when it turned off on-site cameras and that this knowledge gap was irreversible. In that same report, the IAEA estimated that, as of mid-May 2025, Iran had 408.6 kilograms of uranium hexafluoride (UF6), enriched up to 60 percent uranium 235 (called highly enriched uranium or HEU), 274.5 kilograms enriched up to 20 percent (called low-enriched uranium or LEU), 5,508.8 kilograms enriched up to 5 percent, and 2,221.4 kilograms up to 2 percent.

Then, in a confidential letter of June 12, the IAEA informed member states that Iran had significantly ramped up production of enriched uranium, estimating that Iran’s total stockpile now included 440.9 kilograms of up to 60-percent HEU, 184.1 kilograms up to 20 percent, 6,024.4 kilograms up to 5 percent, and 2,391.1 kilograms up to 2 percent. On the same day, the IAEA’s board declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations. Not only had Iran concealed information about activities at its nuclear facilities, the agency reported; Iran had also reportedly obtained highly confidential documents from the agency and member states for several years, allowing it to know the agency’s assessment of Iran’s nuclear program equipment.

The next day, Israel attacked Iran, targeting military leaders, nuclear scientists, and nuclear facilities. The attack reportedly caused significant damage to the Natanz nuclear facility, Iran’s main enrichment site.

On June 20, the former commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, Mohsen Rezaei, said that the enriched nuclear material had been moved to secure locations. “We will not give up its position.” On June 22, the United States launched air strikes against Iran’s main nuclear sites at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan—10 days after Israel first attacked.

Hegseth claim that there is no intelligence on Iran moving the 440 kg 60% enriched HEU..

Nine months later, the IAEA says it still does not know the location of Iran’s highly enriched uranium.

The 60% HEU can be made into a nuclear bomb..not as powerful as with fully enriched weapons plutonium, but still..

So the question is..what are we to do about it..?

 

[Red Leg]

Dear red leg,
I have to thank you for your responses, as I consider you an expert on weapons and tactics without equal on this forum.
I find it to be privileged in allowing me in this meaningful conversation.

So:
In any war, there are targets - we agree on that? And any side can get hit.

For example an awacs was hit parked on tarmac, and as per pictures availake on internet it seams it was hit exactly in radar dome, cutting the fuselage by 2 thirds forward, 1 third aft.

This was not supposed to happen and to me this indicates the failure of defense systems, for whatever reason.
Either patriots missing the incoming projectile, or ammunition being depleted and not reloaded, or early warning radar system has been destroyed just before
(I hope I use the correct terms)

We have also established, based on your earlier comment, that the proxies will have lesser capabilities than the major powers who support them.
We agree on that too?

So what Russia has to offer except being a target? Maybe nothing, but is not as simple as it sounds.

Now, as you are the expert on weapons and tactics, which I am not, I will have to go from big picture down.
Russia, will always offer the targets.

USA is main, top 1, global offensive power able to project power anywhere in the world within a short time frame.
Special forces deployed within 24 hours anywhere in the world, and any missile delivered with any warhead within a flight time.

Russia (still ranked as no 2 global power) is major defensive power.
Those two to compare, is like comparing apples and oranges.

It also means, any eventual conflict will not be on some Pacific island, where US will have full advantage, but most probably on Russian soil, thus becoming a target.
Upon which, they will offer some response.

Does Russia win every war? No.
Does USA win every war? No. (even with medium sized country)

So, far they have been very careful not to launch any assault, at any nato country and invoke article 5.
But as I said earlier, why should they?

They do not need territory, being largest country in the world, they do not need resources since they have them, including the new frontier - arctic.

So, what is left is their security concerns, on which they historically react.
Basically, how I see it, they would prefer not to have nato missiles too close to their borders, with perspective that in the future those missiles will be hypersonic.

In case of such conflict, being targeted and hit, most likely they will engage in conventional missiles attacks to Nato bases across the Europe. All bases are within range.
Once attacked, article 5, damn it, lets have it, thats what I think will be their reasoning

The latest capabiltiy they have shown is Oreshnik, allegedly hypersonic, 6x6 warheads, total 36 warheads per missile. Twice launched, twice hit Ukranian targets.
Press silenced about this and its effects, which is very unusual for MSM.
Allegedly they used dummy warheads, pure kinetic energy. They must had a reason for this.
(your insight on this would be welcome)

I have no idea how many of those they have, but give it some time, they will accumulate enough.
Till then they will supplement with whatever they have, to saturate the sky.
(If Iran - medium sized country - could, why couldnt they?)

Speaking of air defenses, on the opening of conflict in Ukraine, a soviet built drone (available both in Ukraine and Russia), flew through nato umbrella, passed few countries and landed in Croatia capital without warhead.
if that could pass few countries, most likely Oreshnik can pass too.
It is still officially unknown who launched that, Ukrainians or Russians.

Generally speaking what I am seeing this would be Iran - Persian gulf scenario, for which we have not seen proper defenses as yet.

But with Russia I see this scenario potentially on much larger scale

That would be initial missile exchange.
After that what happens?

After the first bomb falls, policies change. on both sides. And for this, I have no idea how far escalation ladder will go up.
But the risk of nuclear exchange is too high, to be acceptable, especially if the Russians find themselves in existential treat

Unlike other European powers, only Russian have full nuclear triad, and developed submarine fleet.
While USA developed carrier groups, they developed submarines.

After missile exchange and bombing campaign, can it turn to conventional invasion by conventional land forces?

I think not.
I am going to use your own estimate few days ago (For America, it is maximum to get to Khaarg island to invade, Invading Iran not an option).
So, full invasion of Iran is not feasible on American side.

If not feasible for Iran, smaller country, most probably will not be feasible for Russia either.

Using conventional Nato forces (if nato allies would like to join the party under article 5), for Major assault on the front from Baltic to Black sea, I dont see that happening either.
Here across the pond, nobody wants to join the army, and professional armies most likely will not be sufficient for large scale assault on that size of front.
Europe is demilitarized culturally. Draft is not legally possible.

So, most likely any such conflict without boots on the ground will remain on bombing and missile exchange, and only that will not change regime, or change the things, while in the same time will bring tremendous destruction on both sides, which really is not required.
Iran tough to crack, for last 47 years?
How about Russia?

Hitting targets is always welcome.
But was it America that won every battle, and lost Vietnam war, when domestic political circumstances changed?

And now we are in the middle of geo political global changes witnessing things unthinkable till recently.

American stable relations with Russia, as security strategy. That was the first shock to European allies, in the middle of Ukrainian war who portraits Russia as arch enemy of western civilistion.

American aspirations to Greenland, against every European interest (Denmark), 2nd shock to allies?

Banning US forces from using bases for Iran war effort by UK Spain, Italy, etc including Diego Garcia, which most probably is critical logistic base for Iran operations, as all others are in Persian gulf within range, and inside the lake with closed Hormuz.
A return shock to USA, I would estimate.
Allies are not supposed to do such things

And in all these situations. launching some action against targets in Russia with perspective of nuclear exchange when push comes to shove?
Just imagine the allied reactions?

Well, the politics run the war.
Its not only hitting the targets.

There will be no conventional missile "exchange" with the Russian military. It is a lot of trouble for small and unlikely return to put a single small to medium sized warhead - typically 500 - 1000 lbs on a strategic target. It is why we only employ them in the tactical environment. The Russians could indeed try to launch them, but the overwhelming US conventional response would be from attack aircraft. Initial targets would be the Russian air defense network followed by C3 nodes, and then strike capability. A single US squadron of F-35 aircraft consists of 24 platforms, each with an internal payload of 18,000 lbs. That single squadron, in a single sortie, will deliver 432,000 lbs of munitions with unerring accuracy - a single squadron. The US currently deploys 10 F-35 squadrons and six F-15E squadrons. Of course that does not count the the B-2 and B-21 strategic bombers which would also be striking.

Should the Navy also be employed, that brings the second largest air strike force in the world into play as well.

Yes, against the Russians we would lose more aircraft than against the Iranians, but I have no doubt those air defenses would be quickly overwhelmed

Open sources suggests the Russians have roughly 900 ground launch systems for their SS-26 and SS-N-30 surface to surface missiles capable of carrying a conventional warhead. Do the math. How long do you think those launchers and their stockpiles of munitions (which are virtually empty at the present time) would survive? And the math only gets worse. How many warheads of their initial strike would actually get through to targets. With the exception of the hypersonic, the Russian missiles are no more difficult to intercept than their Iranian counterparts. Again, do the math.

The hypersonic does produce additional challenges (at least for a little while longer), but the three fired at Ukraine (one crashed soon after launch) were technically interesting, but not particularly damaging. They did indeed use inert warheads, but speed also requires great mass to be truly destructive.

Militarily, the correlation of conventional forces imbalance with respect to the US alone in which Russia finds itself in is staggering. They would have more luck striking European cities in Eastern and Central Europe due to the lack of air defense, but I am having a difficult time imagining a potential political return that would be worth the ensuing devastation.

 

[LivingTheDream]

You seem to forget that Sweden and Finland joined NATO.. If the US leave it will probably end up being used by Britain, Sweden and Norway to fly sortees in and around the Baltic Sea to deter Russia..Canada also express a will to close more in on Europe..

Cost will be shared within NATO.

So your answer is Canada. I would love to hear from our Canada members on how they feel taking in that role.

 

[Pondoro]

So your answer is Canada. I would love to hear from our Canada members on how they feel taking in that role.

Did I say only Canada..?

 

[mark-hunter]

Red leg,
Well noted yours, with great interest.

However, i still think that sometimes best laid plans do not survive first contact with enemy.
I hope we will never see this happening.

 

[BnC 04]

Minorities have been fooled since LBJ started the War On Poverty. The Democrats are the new slave masters and the plantation has Section 8 housing, food stamps, welfare and free phones. You just have to vote the way the Master tells you to continue living on it. It boggles my mind they haven't figured it out.

They have it figured out but what is mind numbing is that they could care less. We live in a society that is heavily made up of "whats in it for me" window lickers. No motivation, no pride in working towards a goal. They live their lives suckling off of gov't tit, and totally content with it. Hell everyday I hear how they think they "deserve" more.

 

[Red Leg]

Red leg,
Well noted yours, with great interest.

However, i still think that sometimes best laid plans do not survive first contact with enemy.
I hope we will never see this happening.

Of course they do not. However, the more capable, the better equipped, the better trained, and the most adaptive force will react more quickly and lethally to those changing conditions. Russia holds none of those cards in a contest with the United States. I frankly believe they have held only one of those from time to time against Ukraine.

 

[LivingTheDream]

Did I say only Canada..?

No but still believe you are in fantasy world regarding on where the funding, troops and technology will make up that gap.

You just saw the Russians escort a ship right through the UK channel and your response was of course they cant do anything it could cause WW3. But this is who you are saying it going to step up.

And I am not sure how to word it but I just don't see UK or Canada's current leadership to have the determination to really follow through. I dont know enough about Finland, Sweden, or Norway to speak credibility about their capabilities or overall mindset.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

So your answer is Canada. I would love to hear from our Canada members on how they feel taking in that role.

The entire Canadian airforce is 390 air platforms with approximately 40% being considered airworthy.

We have 33 navel vessels total and no supply ships currently in service.

We also can’t meet recruitment goals for our armed forces or reserves with 4-5 thousand vacancies in each.

Canada has very professional soldiers who are forced to operate on a shoestring budget with antiquated technology at best, third world countries have newer and more tanks planes ect than we can field.

To answer your question it is my belief that if called on Canadians soldiers would do the very best that they could with the limited means they have available to them.

 

[mdwest]

So the question is..what are we to do about it..?

I don’t believe “we” are going to do anything about it…

The US and Israel on the other hand are very obviously doing something about it…