So happy to see this piece.

Considering that climate models said it would all be gone by now, and it isn’t, far from it, then it does seem prudent to continually invest in them. Additionally, the climate models (which are more of an educated guess) specifically refer to there being no ice in the SUMMER. In the winter, you will always have ice…

I understand how NATO works, I was referencing the devout belief everyone has that a Russian attack is imminent, when it makes little sense when looked at from a political, tactical, or economic perspective. Most main players like France and Germany do not wish to have a war, and are trying to take a more diplomatic…

If the continued escalation keeps up, yes. The issue is, as always, each side sees themselves as righteous

The U.S. Has continually approached their airspace as have the Russians (not nearly as much as we have until recently). There is also a differenc between sending some planes for training for a few days and permanently basing them. Also a difference in sending them over there for training infrequently as opposed to…

It is difficult to draw straight parallels with each country. Russia has the disadvantage of having a larger force than the U.S. Early in the Cold War, that put them in a very bad position in the 80s to early 2000s of having too many things aging too fast to replace them, that’s why vehicles like the ISU-152M were in…

I would love to know that to. One thing a lot of people seems to forget when they are modeling European countries as perfect economies (Switzerland is a common one) is that most rely on the U.S. For defense. I do wonder how different those economies would be if they didn't have the big NATO players to rely on

Hopefully no cicadas were harmed...

I have never been much for Business Insiders take on Russia, they are the ones who keep making pretty ridiculous claims about Russia, such as the F-35 being more maneuverable than the PAK FA because it comes in 3 variants.

Actually, I think it is the other way around. The U.S. Never really cut back from the Cold War. We are focusing on building up a force in Europe, the Western Pacific, while trying to sort out conflicts in Libya, Iraq, and Syria, upon that, the we are trying to build more ships that are expensive and we are still…

Pretty much every NATO force east of France would be flattened. Contrary to what the American media says, we are almost alone in wanting to escalate tensions with Russia (the UK does as well). Most Baltic states are very poor and happy about the prospect of getting a blank check to modernize their militaries.

Well, considering it is subsonic, and most powerful X-Band radars (and other bandwidths) could pick it up at 6 miles, you still have a pretty good defense.

No expert, but if I was to counter a system like this, I would go for unguided rocket pods on an airplane (can those be mounted on an F-15?

And promptly get disabled...

Americans are notorious for disregarding threats and underestimating their enemies, I wonder why...

Actually, this thing has been in development for a while, and at this point is probably very very real.

Lasers can easily be shielded against, microwaves not so much. You can harden the electronics but your sensors won't work

Well, most big missiles aren't air launched and can't hit something 6 miles away.

This, if I am not mistaken.

Makes me think of this