Not a expert, but going to take a guess. The MMIII and the Trident have roughly the same range (8000 miles). I think the issue is based on where the silos are, at that range they can’t hit targets globally. I.E. a MM3 can’t hit all of the targets that may be required in China, Pakistan, etc. it was designed to go…

The Iranian system was air-gaped, didn't help them...

More submarines, and a new Destroyer/Cruiser. Zumwalt is nice, but take what we learned from that and make something that is affordable to mass produce. The Burkes are great, but will never be able to field advanced weaponry (Rail Gun, Energy Weapons). Submarines will own the ocean in a ‘real’ war.

Seen that video a few times, everytime I watch it, it looks like he is coming in WAY to fast to make that landing.

Paying taxs.

Not sure it’s that, I think its more that people in our government still see solutions to problems as being black and white. Assad is bad, so we must get rid of him, without understanding the nuances of what he is doing and what the result of him not being there would be.

Cant find them handy now, but also keep in mind I said Sortie rate. Unlike the Russians, the U.S. isnt bombing anything that moves, just ISIS/Al Nusra targets. So, we may send a plane up and have it come back with munitions. The Russians will *always* find a target to drop on, since they are not fighting ISIS, but…

Speak Russian?

Yes, because it has NEVER happened there before.

Are you kidding me? Up until a few weeks ago Russia wasn't even there. Even now we are running more sorties then them.

Yep, there is, but the U.S. Is doing 90% of the work. It would be nice to share the burden.

If that helps you sleep at night, go with it. You think ISIS doesn't want Spain to be Muslim again? Yep, I'm sure they would just leave you alone. It honestly boggles my mind how you can sit on the sidelines.

Good.. Maybe they can actually put them to use and join in the fight against ISIS. Or are they still sitting on the sidelines?

NATO will *only* work until the moment it doesnt. That may sound stupid, but all it takes is the russians pressing someplace that they think they can get away with something, and all faith will be lost in the treaty when we do nothing. We are not going to risk losing NYC or Chicago over Tallinn, i’m pretty sure of…

Not really.. France and the UK have a Nuclear Deterrent, and the Germans during the cold war were a force to be dealt with.

I just dont get this, as I’ve ranted before on this site. Why the hell do we want countries like Montenegro, Lithuania, Estonia, etc in NATO? What do they bring to the table? NOTHING. All they bring is downside for the U.S. and the bigger NATO countries. We are now treaty obligated to defend a country that can’t…

Not sure about that.. Keep in mind, there are many variations of the Humvee.. (Ambulance, Anti-Air, Etc) which by the nature of the role was meant for somewhat front-line duty.

It’s not that simple. You are talking about a NATO country shooting down a Russian Fighter for more then likely aaccidentallygoing over a extremely small part of there country. As I said before, this now threatens the U.S. as we are flying in the same area. The Russians are now going to be much more likely to shoot…

Accidents happen, and you would think that a NATO country would know better then to attack a Russian fighter. At the end of the day, a NATO country just shot down a Russian Bomber for accidentally crossing a line for a few miles. Look at the map, its pretty clear to me that the intention was not for this bomber to…

Not that i’m defending Turkey, as I think they went overboard here, but what you refer to with the bombers is different. Those bombers may enter the ADZ of NATO country’s, but I dont think they ever penetrate the borders. That would be a HUGE provocation, and as far as I know, has never happened (or atleast not…