It’s not that hard you can compare it yourself, google how many military assets russia have. USA spend a trillion in war each year and as a result they have almost a thousand operative fifth generation planes (for comparison russia has less than 25). USA has about 70 nuclear submarines where russia has 20
Now we’re finally getting to a real argument! Now you’re arguing that the US is better prepared for war than Russia is, not just that the US spends more money on war than Russia does.
I do notice, however, that you have linked not a single article or source for the claims in these comments. Where are your numbers coming from?
You might be right that the US is more prepared for war than Russia is. I’m not convinced, and also I think m532 has a good point that nukes (which both the us and Russia have) change everything, but you could still be right.
I’m actually not that interested in whether the claim “america would easily beat Russia if they actually tried” is true. My entire reason for engaging was simply to point out that “the US spends more on war and hence is necessarily better prepared for war” is not a good argument; the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
If you want to convince people on the internet, you should practice making better arguments, and sourcing them properly. Your argumentation in this thread has been abysmal and I wanted to help you see that and make improvements
Well I did read the F-22 page, as I said before. You’re right that I didn’t read the rest of them because at that point in the conversation I was extremely confused as to why you’d linked them in the first place.
I see that the US built a total of 195 F-22’s. That number isn’t any of the ones you listed in your one comment that had some numbers.
To be charitable to you, I might be able to find the 1000 warplanes and 70 nuclear sub numbers somewhere in the wikipedia pages you linked. I’m not going to read them, I’m really not into military hardware, but if you tell me that’s where you got the numbers, I’ll go ahead and believe you. It would be better practice, though, to quote a passage that includes the relevant figures, then link to the place you’re quoting from.
Now what about the numbers for Russian warplanes and Russian nuclear subs? What are your sources for those figures? They surely aren’t found in a wikipedia article about the american military
Now what about the numbers for Russian warplanes and Russian nuclear subs? What are your sources for those figures? They surely aren’t found in a wikipedia article about the american military
In the wikipedia article about the russian military
It’s not that hard you can compare it yourself, google how many military assets russia have. USA spend a trillion in war each year and as a result they have almost a thousand operative fifth generation planes (for comparison russia has less than 25). USA has about 70 nuclear submarines where russia has 20
Now we’re finally getting to a real argument! Now you’re arguing that the US is better prepared for war than Russia is, not just that the US spends more money on war than Russia does.
I do notice, however, that you have linked not a single article or source for the claims in these comments. Where are your numbers coming from?
You might be right that the US is more prepared for war than Russia is. I’m not convinced, and also I think m532 has a good point that nukes (which both the us and Russia have) change everything, but you could still be right.
I’m actually not that interested in whether the claim “america would easily beat Russia if they actually tried” is true. My entire reason for engaging was simply to point out that “the US spends more on war and hence is necessarily better prepared for war” is not a good argument; the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
If you want to convince people on the internet, you should practice making better arguments, and sourcing them properly. Your argumentation in this thread has been abysmal and I wanted to help you see that and make improvements
From the wikipedia pages you didn’t even open
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_B-2_Spirit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_States_Navy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_the_United_States_Navy
Well I did read the F-22 page, as I said before. You’re right that I didn’t read the rest of them because at that point in the conversation I was extremely confused as to why you’d linked them in the first place.
I see that the US built a total of 195 F-22’s. That number isn’t any of the ones you listed in your one comment that had some numbers.
To be charitable to you, I might be able to find the 1000 warplanes and 70 nuclear sub numbers somewhere in the wikipedia pages you linked. I’m not going to read them, I’m really not into military hardware, but if you tell me that’s where you got the numbers, I’ll go ahead and believe you. It would be better practice, though, to quote a passage that includes the relevant figures, then link to the place you’re quoting from.
Now what about the numbers for Russian warplanes and Russian nuclear subs? What are your sources for those figures? They surely aren’t found in a wikipedia article about the american military
In the wikipedia article about the russian military
Which you haven’t linked.
If I go to wikipedia and search “Russian military” will I find an article with those numbers?
Why can’t you quote the relevant sections, then link to what you’re quoting from? That’s how sources in an argument are supposed to work.
Russia has hypersonic nukes, usa doesn’t. It doesn’t matter how much you spend, if you get hypersonic nuked you are dead.