Mitt Romney: The need for a mighty U.S. military (1 Viewer)

[Alex P Keaton]

Russia and China are always going to do more or less what they want, because they know that we won't go to war with them no matter how large our military is. And of course we could flatten every building in Iran tomorrow with the military at its current size -- an inadequate supply of bombs isn't the reason why we're not attacking Iran.

I didn't bother reading the article, but I wanted to touch on your first point. This didn't used to be the case. Russia and China do what they want because they know we won't do anything. But back during the Cold War, the reason Russia didn't do things is because the thought the US WOULD do something. I know everyone says they don't want another Cold War, but without it, Russia is now free to move around the cabin. They need to fear the US the same way they used to. We need to start calling their bluffs. Russia doesn't want a nuclear war with the US anymore than we want one with them.

Look at how Kennedy handled it during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That's what needs to happen again.

What does this mean exactly?Kennedy discovered missiles in Cuba. He demanded they be withdrawn. He did not attack Cuba, but he did use the Navy to blockade. Kennedy never once threatened the use of nuclear weapons nor did he even consider it (except of course, in retaliation to the Soviets using them.)

So what do you have in mind? What demand should we make of the Russians and where should we blockade?

I never said he did any of that. But he drew a line in the sand and basically said to the Russians, "Your call. If you want to start WW3, cross that line."

No he didn't. He blockaded Cuba, and made a VERY SPECIFIC DEMAND.So again, since you think this is something we should do today, I ask: what would YOUR demand be, and what would you threaten Russia with?

Umm. We just said the same things. What would I do? I start working with NATO to start moving troops up against the borders of Russia. I'd also start moving in NATO troops into Ukraine. Not where the fighting is, but close enough. And I tell Putin that if any of these troops come under fire, there would be a retaliation. A MASSIVE retaliation. Then I would go on TV and give a speech saying that I expect that Putin can handle his army and that none of his troops should fire or advanced. And if they do, that means that Putin is not in control of his own military.

Just off the top of my head.

You must be a big fan of the game Risk. Maybe you should apply to run the DoD......with your extensive Risk experience on your resume?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Best not to take me too seriously in the future.

Should this general approach to your posts change?

 

[renesauz]

So why doesn't he just stroll in Ukraine knowing that we won't want to escalate things?

I believe he is doing that.

Hardly. Russia could take total control of Ukraine in days if it wanted to.

And isn't there a sizeable LOCAL population there that is more or less Russian and openly inviting mother Russia to intervene?

Perhaps our take on the situation is being misinformed by our own media and a (perfectly understable and longstanding) prejudice against Russia.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

So we had the supersized military, but did we win any war after WWII? Lets forget the Vietnam fiasco. We bombed other dingy countries like Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade but did that improve our national security at all? Are we just bad warriors? Obama said our number #1 enemy is Al Qaeda, and probably ISIS now (I cannot tell them apart anyway). When your enemy is in the dark and you're in the open, you cannot win just by having big guns.Other countries are less scared of us not only because we are shrinking our military, they know we cannot afford another extended war. Our military probably wasn't that big when Hilter was terrorizing Europe, but I suppose one of the reasons we didn't get involved until Peal Harbor was because we were still in a depression.

We're in a depression now, so it seems like a good time to get in a real war.

US national debt was $49B in 1941, which is equivalent to $800B today. Now our national debt is close to $18T.

and what is our gross national product ?

Our GNP is almost $17T in 2013.

 

[Fennis]

So why doesn't he just stroll in Ukraine knowing that we won't want to escalate things?

I believe he is doing that.

Hardly. Russia could take total control of Ukraine in days if it wanted to.

And isn't there a sizeable LOCAL population there that is more or less Russian and openly inviting mother Russia to intervene?

Perhaps our take on the situation is being misinformed by our own media and a (perfectly understable and longstanding) prejudice against Russia.

to intervene in what?

Ethnic russians asking Russia to supply troops and arms inside Ukraine because the country is moving closer to Europe is not OK no matter how liberal the lame stream media is.

Hard core republicans hard-on for Putin never ceases to amaze me.

 

[MaxThreshold]

So why doesn't he just stroll in Ukraine knowing that we won't want to escalate things?

I believe he is doing that.

Hardly. Russia could take total control of Ukraine in days if it wanted to.

And isn't there a sizeable LOCAL population there that is more or less Russian and openly inviting mother Russia to intervene?

Perhaps our take on the situation is being misinformed by our own media and a (perfectly understable and longstanding) prejudice against Russia.

to intervene in what?

Ethnic russians asking Russia to supply troops and arms inside Ukraine because the country is moving closer to Europe is not OK no matter how liberal the lame stream media is.

Hard core republicans hard-on for Putin never ceases to amaze me.

Who's doing that? You may be misinformed.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

So why doesn't he just stroll in Ukraine knowing that we won't want to escalate things?

I believe he is doing that.

Hardly. Russia could take total control of Ukraine in days if it wanted to.

And isn't there a sizeable LOCAL population there that is more or less Russian and openly inviting mother Russia to intervene?

Perhaps our take on the situation is being misinformed by our own media and a (perfectly understable and longstanding) prejudice against Russia.

to intervene in what?

Ethnic russians asking Russia to supply troops and arms inside Ukraine because the country is moving closer to Europe is not OK no matter how liberal the lame stream media is.

Hard core republicans hard-on for Putin never ceases to amaze me.

Who's doing that? You may be misinformed.

Answer

 

[MaxThreshold]

So why doesn't he just stroll in Ukraine knowing that we won't want to escalate things?

I believe he is doing that.

Hardly. Russia could take total control of Ukraine in days if it wanted to.

And isn't there a sizeable LOCAL population there that is more or less Russian and openly inviting mother Russia to intervene?

Perhaps our take on the situation is being misinformed by our own media and a (perfectly understable and longstanding) prejudice against Russia.

to intervene in what?

Ethnic russians asking Russia to supply troops and arms inside Ukraine because the country is moving closer to Europe is not OK no matter how liberal the lame stream media is.

Hard core republicans hard-on for Putin never ceases to amaze me.

Who's doing that? You may be misinformed.

Answer

I dispute the "hard-on" meme promoted by progressives. I think it's that Putin is schooling Obama and making him look foolish - which is the real point. It's that Republicans are embarrassed by this fact, not that they support Putin.

 

[jonessed]

So why doesn't he just stroll in Ukraine knowing that we won't want to escalate things?

I believe he is doing that.

Hardly. Russia could take total control of Ukraine in days if it wanted to.And isn't there a sizeable LOCAL population there that is more or less Russian and openly inviting mother Russia to intervene?

Perhaps our take on the situation is being misinformed by our own media and a (perfectly understable and longstanding) prejudice against Russia.

In Eastern Ukraine. It's not as large as the population that supports sovereignty, but it's still there.

Trying to occupy the rest of Ukraine would be a total nightmare. They are definitely not pro-Russia.

 

[timschochet]

So why doesn't he just stroll in Ukraine knowing that we won't want to escalate things?

I believe he is doing that.

Hardly. Russia could take total control of Ukraine in days if it wanted to.And isn't there a sizeable LOCAL population there that is more or less Russian and openly inviting mother Russia to intervene?

Perhaps our take on the situation is being misinformed by our own media and a (perfectly understable and longstanding) prejudice against Russia.

In Eastern Ukraine. It's not as large as the population that supports sovereignty, but it's still there.

Trying to occupy the rest of Ukraine would be a total nightmare. They are definitely not pro-Russia.

Which is why I believe they'll never do it. Which is why most of this discussion is IMO, a waste of time. Russia is not our enemy; they do not present a threat to us. I propose we seek closer ties with them. And then maybe together we can do something about ISIS and the Middle East.

 

[jonessed]

So why doesn't he just stroll in Ukraine knowing that we won't want to escalate things?

I believe he is doing that.

Hardly. Russia could take total control of Ukraine in days if it wanted to.And isn't there a sizeable LOCAL population there that is more or less Russian and openly inviting mother Russia to intervene?

Perhaps our take on the situation is being misinformed by our own media and a (perfectly understable and longstanding) prejudice against Russia.

In Eastern Ukraine. It's not as large as the population that supports sovereignty, but it's still there.Trying to occupy the rest of Ukraine would be a total nightmare. They are definitely not pro-Russia.

Which is why I believe they'll never do it. Which is why most of this discussion is IMO, a waste of time. Russia is not our enemy; they do not present a threat to us. I propose we seek closer ties with them. And then maybe together we can do something about ISIS and the Middle East.

I know you are OK with Russia taking Crimea and invading East Ukraine, but a lot of people aren't.

If you feel the discussion is a waste of time why are you here?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

So why doesn't he just stroll in Ukraine knowing that we won't want to escalate things?

I believe he is doing that.

Hardly. Russia could take total control of Ukraine in days if it wanted to.And isn't there a sizeable LOCAL population there that is more or less Russian and openly inviting mother Russia to intervene?

Perhaps our take on the situation is being misinformed by our own media and a (perfectly understable and longstanding) prejudice against Russia.

In Eastern Ukraine. It's not as large as the population that supports sovereignty, but it's still there.Trying to occupy the rest of Ukraine would be a total nightmare. They are definitely not pro-Russia.

Which is why I believe they'll never do it. Which is why most of this discussion is IMO, a waste of time. Russia is not our enemy; they do not present a threat to us. I propose we seek closer ties with them. And then maybe together we can do something about ISIS and the Middle East.

Don't be naive. Now a days the one thing that everyone goes to war for is oil and gas. There just isn't enough to go around and you need it to be #1.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Didn't Ukraine already want in to NATO? Maybe we can help them before the feces hit the fan, and then they join. Seems like the humanitarian thing to do

we haven't allowed countries that far to the east to be in NATO. The reason is we don't want to defend them! It's also considered highly offensive in Moscow. How would we like it if Russia offered to defend Mexico from "Yankee aggression"?

Yeah. Let's not piss off Russia. The meek United States should cower in fear of all mighty Russia.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Didn't Ukraine already want in to NATO? Maybe we can help them before the feces hit the fan, and then they join. Seems like the humanitarian thing to do

we haven't allowed countries that far to the east to be in NATO. The reason is we don't want to defend them! It's also considered highly offensive in Moscow. How would we like it if Russia offered to defend Mexico from "Yankee aggression"?

Yeah. Let's not piss off Russia. The meek United States should cower in fear of all mighty Russia.

Not pissing people off is a pretty effective defense strategy.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Didn't Ukraine already want in to NATO? Maybe we can help them before the feces hit the fan, and then they join. Seems like the humanitarian thing to do

we haven't allowed countries that far to the east to be in NATO. The reason is we don't want to defend them! It's also considered highly offensive in Moscow. How would we like it if Russia offered to defend Mexico from "Yankee aggression"?

Yeah. Let's not piss off Russia. The meek United States should cower in fear of all mighty Russia.

Not pissing people off is a pretty effective defense strategy.

Worked against Hitler.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Not pissing people off is a pretty effective defense strategy.

Worked against Hitler.

There aren't all that many Hitlers out there.

 

[timschochet]

So why doesn't he just stroll in Ukraine knowing that we won't want to escalate things?

I believe he is doing that.

Hardly. Russia could take total control of Ukraine in days if it wanted to.And isn't there a sizeable LOCAL population there that is more or less Russian and openly inviting mother Russia to intervene?

Perhaps our take on the situation is being misinformed by our own media and a (perfectly understable and longstanding) prejudice against Russia.

In Eastern Ukraine. It's not as large as the population that supports sovereignty, but it's still there.Trying to occupy the rest of Ukraine would be a total nightmare. They are definitely not pro-Russia.

Which is why I believe they'll never do it. Which is why most of this discussion is IMO, a waste of time. Russia is not our enemy; they do not present a threat to us. I propose we seek closer ties with them. And then maybe together we can do something about ISIS and the Middle East.

I know you are OK with Russia taking Crimea and invading East Ukraine, but a lot of people aren't.If you feel the discussion is a waste of time why are you here?

what to do about our military is an inportant and worthwhile discussion.

 

[CBusAlex]

Forget the Ukraine. The Ukraine is weak. Indefensible. If we want to hurt Putin, we need to build up our forces in Alaska, and then go in through Kamchatka. They'll never see it coming.

 

[NutterButter]

Forget the Ukraine. The Ukraine is weak. Indefensible. If we want to hurt Putin, we need to build up our forces in Alaska, and then go in through Kamchatka. They'll never see it coming.

Jesus, how do you know one of Putin's operatives doesn't read this board.

 

[kentric]

Why should NATO flex it's muscles in the Ukraine? The Soviet Union used to OWN the Ukraine, and we never lifted a finger. Don't get me wrong, it's a very bad thing for the Ukrainian people if they were to suffer more subjugation to the Russians, as they have for centuries, but it would not be a threat to the west- it's not the Rhineland, and this ain't Nazi Germany. The rules have changed.

We can get economically ugly with the Russians, but that's about it. If they invade Poland, then yeah we are bound by treaty to go to war. But the Ukraine is not Poland.

I agree. There's no way we should be going into Ukraine with any viable military presence. I think that putting pressure on them politically/economically is the best route to go.

At this point in time, the only remaining countries North or West of Turkey (which is in Nato) of any size are Finland, Belarus and Ukraine. Of those, I'd say Finland is the only one which is vital . This assumes Belarus' ties to Russia are too strong and it will not desire to join and Ukraine will not join as it would risk Russia attacking.

eta. map - http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_publications/NATO_member_and_partner_countries-2011-ENG.pdf

 

[Jackstraw]

The natural American response seems to be to "DO SOMETHING". But sometimes, perhaps most times do nothing may be the least worst alternative.

I've seen enough war in my lifetime that the bar is extremely high for me to support it. At this point I'm not seeing enough to enter into a war. In what way is our citizenry in imminent danger right now? Other than the non descript, non unknowable future boogeyman OMFG something could happen type of threat.

 

[TheIronSheik]

The natural American response seems to be to "DO SOMETHING". But sometimes, perhaps most times do nothing may be the least worst alternative.

I've seen enough war in my lifetime that the bar is extremely high for me to support it. At this point I'm not seeing enough to enter into a war. In what way is our citizenry in imminent danger right now? Other than the non descript, non unknowable future boogeyman OMFG something could happen type of threat.

I think there are more options than just start a war or ignore it.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

So Mitt is going to run again?

No.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/03/romney-says-hes-not-running-for-president-in-185570.html

But

http://m.theweek.com/speedreads/index/265418/speedreads-americans-really-wish-they-had-elected-mitt-romney-instead-of-obama

Although (question 38/39)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/07/27/cnn.orc.poll.pdf

So he's running.

 

[HellToupee]

So Mitt is going to run again?

No.http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/03/romney-says-hes-not-running-for-president-in-185570.html

But

http://m.theweek.com/speedreads/index/265418/speedreads-americans-really-wish-they-had-elected-mitt-romney-instead-of-obama

Although (question 38/39)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/07/27/cnn.orc.poll.pdf

So he's running.

 

[Todd Andrews]

So Mitt is going to run again?

No.http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/03/romney-says-hes-not-running-for-president-in-185570.html

But

http://m.theweek.com/speedreads/index/265418/speedreads-americans-really-wish-they-had-elected-mitt-romney-instead-of-obama

Although (question 38/39)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/07/27/cnn.orc.poll.pdf

So he's running.

That is what is happening in Hillary's pants.

 

[Josie Maran]

Gross.

 

[cstu]

The natural American response seems to be to "DO SOMETHING". But sometimes, perhaps most times do nothing may be the least worst alternative.

I've seen enough war in my lifetime that the bar is extremely high for me to support it. At this point I'm not seeing enough to enter into a war. In what way is our citizenry in imminent danger right now? Other than the non descript, non unknowable future boogeyman OMFG something could happen type of threat.

I think there are more options than just start a war or ignore it.

You don't understand - we're AMERICANS!!!!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Not pissing people off is a pretty effective defense strategy.

Worked against Hitler.

There aren't all that many Hitlers out there.

There are Hitlers everywhere for those in the defense industry.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Estonia next?

Well, Estonia IS a NATO country. Would we defend them or say it's not our business? I mean, we don't want to make Russia mad.

 

[Fennis]

Estonia next?

Well, Estonia IS a NATO country. Would we defend them or say it's not our business? I mean, we don't want to make Russia mad.

US policy is pretty clear.

An attack on one is an attack on all," Obama declared in a sweeping speech before students and civil leaders in this NATO member state. "If, in such a moment, you ever ask again, 'Who’ll come to help?' You’ll know the answer — the NATO Alliance, including the armed forces of the United States of America, right here, present, now! We’ll be here for Estonia. We’ll be here for Latvia. We’ll be here for Lithuania. You lost your independence once before. With NATO, you’ll never lose it again."

"The defense of Tallinn and Riga and Vilnius is just as important as the defense of Berlin and Paris and London," he said.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Estonia next?

Well, Estonia IS a NATO country. Would we defend them or say it's not our business? I mean, we don't want to make Russia mad.

US policy is pretty clear.

An attack on one is an attack on all," Obama declared in a sweeping speech before students and civil leaders in this NATO member state. "If, in such a moment, you ever ask again, 'Who’ll come to help?' You’ll know the answer — the NATO Alliance, including the armed forces of the United States of America, right here, present, now! We’ll be here for Estonia. We’ll be here for Latvia. We’ll be here for Lithuania. You lost your independence once before. With NATO, you’ll never lose it again."

"The defense of Tallinn and Riga and Vilnius is just as important as the defense of Berlin and Paris and London," he said.

I know what the policy reads. I didn't mean that. I meant what will the American people think? Do you think because we have a policy that says we will defend them that the people of the US will be onboard with that? I'm thinking there would still be a huge push back.

 

[Fennis]

Estonia next?

Well, Estonia IS a NATO country. Would we defend them or say it's not our business? I mean, we don't want to make Russia mad.

US policy is pretty clear.

An attack on one is an attack on all," Obama declared in a sweeping speech before students and civil leaders in this NATO member state. "If, in such a moment, you ever ask again, 'Who’ll come to help?' You’ll know the answer — the NATO Alliance, including the armed forces of the United States of America, right here, present, now! We’ll be here for Estonia. We’ll be here for Latvia. We’ll be here for Lithuania. You lost your independence once before. With NATO, you’ll never lose it again."

"The defense of Tallinn and Riga and Vilnius is just as important as the defense of Berlin and Paris and London," he said.

I know what the policy reads. I didn't mean that. I meant what will the American people think? Do you think because we have a policy that says we will defend them that the people of the US will be onboard with that? I'm thinking there would still be a huge push back.

I don't. I think most people in the US would expect the US to follow through on its NATO agreements and commitments, especially when it comes to defending member states.

 

[Josie Maran]

Estonia next?

Well, Estonia IS a NATO country. Would we defend them or say it's not our business? I mean, we don't want to make Russia mad.

US policy is pretty clear.

An attack on one is an attack on all," Obama declared in a sweeping speech before students and civil leaders in this NATO member state. "If, in such a moment, you ever ask again, 'Wholl come to help?' Youll know the answer the NATO Alliance, including the armed forces of the United States of America, right here, present, now! Well be here for Estonia. Well be here for Latvia. Well be here for Lithuania. You lost your independence once before. With NATO, youll never lose it again."

"The defense of Tallinn and Riga and Vilnius is just as important as the defense of Berlin and Paris and London," he said.

I know what the policy reads. I didn't mean that. I meant what will the American people think? Do you think because we have a policy that says we will defend them that the people of the US will be onboard with that? I'm thinking there would still be a huge push back.

I'm as anti-intervention as anyone and I'd advocate jumping in with both feet if Russia f'd with a NATO country. Like, full blown WWIII sh#t.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Interesting. What would be the line that they would have to cross for you guys? If all of a sudden pro Russian rebels started showing up causing trouble in Estonia using Russian weaponry, but Russia claimed it wasn't them, would this be enough?

I'm seriously asking.

 

[kentric]

Estonia next?

Well, Estonia IS a NATO country. Would we defend them or say it's not our business? I mean, we don't want to make Russia mad.

US policy is pretty clear.

An attack on one is an attack on all," Obama declared in a sweeping speech before students and civil leaders in this NATO member state. "If, in such a moment, you ever ask again, 'Who’ll come to help?' You’ll know the answer — the NATO Alliance, including the armed forces of the United States of America, right here, present, now! We’ll be here for Estonia. We’ll be here for Latvia. We’ll be here for Lithuania. You lost your independence once before. With NATO, you’ll never lose it again."

"The defense of Tallinn and Riga and Vilnius is just as important as the defense of Berlin and Paris and London," he said.

I know what the policy reads. I didn't mean that. I meant what will the American people think? Do you think because we have a policy that says we will defend them that the people of the US will be onboard with that? I'm thinking there would still be a huge push back.

I don't. I think most people in the US would expect the US to follow through on its NATO agreements and commitments, especially when it comes to defending member states.

I agree. Small NATO allies are like Poland was to England. Some lines you just don't cross. If the U.S. did not live up to its obligations to support NATO, its word would be considered worthless.

 

[kentric]

Interesting. What would be the line that they would have to cross for you guys? If all of a sudden pro Russian rebels started showing up causing trouble in Estonia using Russian weaponry, but Russia claimed it wasn't them, would this be enough?

I'm seriously asking.

Yes, it would be enough. The U.S. would definitely send in troops to support the government.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Putin Promises New Weapons to Fend Western Threats

MOSCOW — Sep 10, 2014, 1:10 PM ET

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV Associated Press

Russia is developing an array of new nuclear and conventional weapons to counter recent moves by the U.S. and NATO, President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday as the military successfully tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile launched from a nuclear submarine.

Putin accused the West of using the crisis in Ukraine to reinvigorate NATO, warning that Moscow will ponder a response to the alliance's decision to create a rapid-reaction "spearhead" force to protect Eastern Europe.

His comments came as Russia's relations with the West have plunged to their lowest point since the Cold War due to Russia's role in the crisis in Ukraine. They appear to show that the Russian leader is determined to pursue a tough course in the face of more Western sanctions.

Addressing a Kremlin meeting on weapons modernization, Putin ominously warned the West against getting "hysterical" about Moscow's re-arming efforts, in view of U.S. missile defense plans and other decisions he said have challenged Russia's security.

"We have warned many times that we would have to take corresponding countermeasures to ensure our security," Putin said, adding that he would now take personal charge of the government commission overseeing military industries.

He said Russia's weapons modernization program for 2016-2025 should focus on building a new array of offensive weapons to provide a "guaranteed nuclear deterrent;" re-arming strategic and long-range aviation; creating an aerospace defense system and developing high-precision conventional weapons.

The difficulties faced by the Russian arms industry have been highlighted by the long and painful development of the Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile, which has suffered repeated launch failures.

Its designers finally seem to have cured the glitches, and the navy boasted of a successful launch of the Bulava from a nuclear submarine on Wednesday. Two more launches are set for the fall.

Putin said potential threats must be thoroughly analyzed to avoid overburdening the economy with excessive military spending. He would not elaborate on prospective weapons, but he and other officials have repeatedly boasted about new Russian nuclear missiles' capability to penetrate any prospective missile shield.

Putin's emphasis on high-precision conventional weapons reflected government concerns about the U.S. and other NATO countries enjoying a significant edge in that area.

The comparative weakness of Russia's conventional arsenals have prompted Russia to rely increasingly on a nuclear deterrent, with the nation's military doctrine envisaging the possibility that Russia may use nuclear weapons first in response to a conventional aggression.

Talking about potential threats, the Russian president specifically pointed at the U.S. missile defense program and Washington's plans to develop new conventional weapons that could strike targets anywhere in the world in as little as an hour with deadly precision.

Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who is in charge of weapons industries, told reporters after the meeting that Russia will respond to the U.S. challenge by developing its strategic nuclear forces and aerospace defenses. Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said the military will focus on developing defensive systems to counter the new U.S. programs, according to the Interfax news agency.

Russia inherited most of its arsenal from the Soviet Union and has struggled to develop new weapons systems after the post-Soviet industrial meltdown. With hundreds of subcontractors going out of production, Russian arms manufacturers often had to make components themselves, swelling costs and affecting production quality.

Putin said Russian defense industries must rid themselves of a dependence on imports and quickly become capable of producing key components at home.

Faced with a pro-Russian insurgency in the east backed by Moscow, Ukraine has already cut arms exports to Russia. They include missile components, helicopter engines and turbines for naval ships that Russian arms makers may find hard to replace. Western nations also have cut exports of military components to Russia.

 

[cstu]

President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday as the military successfully tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile launched from a nuclear submarine.

Oh ####, he has nuclear subs now. Quick, put us at DEFCON 1!

 

[cstu]

He said Russia's weapons modernization program for 2016-2025 should focus on building a new array of offensive weapons to provide a "guaranteed nuclear deterrent;" re-arming strategic and long-range aviation; creating an aerospace defense system and developing high-precision conventional weapons.

I guess the peaceful days of a nuclear-free Russia are all over.