 |
|
RE: So they’ve not taken 800K+ casualties and
Posted on: April 1, 2025 at 06:29:06 CT
BH O'bonga MU
Posts:
25014
Member For:
5.39 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
Your thinking is very limited. The Russians don't need a Navy to attack ours. How will our frigates and destroyers protect the CV battle group after all their defensive missiles are expended? They don't replenish missile stocks at sea. Where would the CVBGs be safe from a Russian missile attack? Could they get close enough to be effective. Our ships certainly wouldn't be safe in the North Atlantic, Baltic, Mediterranean, Black Sea, Red Sea, Gulf of Arabia or northern Indian Ocean. Where then?
How long do you think those European Nato air bases and ports would last under heavy and sustained missile attacks? The Russians wouldn't need to attack the US mainland. And we don't have any combat veterans who have fought against a peer or near peer military force. Iraq, Syria and Kosovo are not Russia. Your special forces expert would be particularly useless in a conventional war. You think our lack of weapons and ordnance is only a concern, but we are addressing it? Again, why would we want to start a war against Russia?
How long do you think those European Nato air bases and ports would last under heavy and sustained missile attacks? The Russians wouldn't need to attack the US mainland. And we don't have any combat veterans who have fought against a peer or near peer military force. Iraq, Syria and Kosovo are not Russia. Your special forces expert would be particularly useless in a conventional war. You think our lack of weapons and ordnance is only a concern, but we are addressing it? Again, why would we want to start a war against Russia?
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
RE: So they’ve not taken 800K+ casualties and - BH O'bonga MU - 4/1 06:29:06