Military Review

NI: The technological superiority of the American army is a double-edged sword

119
US spending on high-tech weapons do not justify themselves, according to the American magazine The National Interest. Article leads RIA News.


NI: The technological superiority of the American army is a double-edged sword


“It is believed that today the American military machine has no equal. On the side of the US armed forces all the advantages: advanced technology and the most advanced equipment. However, the technological superiority of American troops is a double-edged sword, ”the authors of the article, experts Tobias Burgers and Scott Romanyuk, write.

They ask themselves: "Is the United States capable of waging full-scale war using the most advanced types weaponsif the value of these weapons reaches astronomical values? "

For example, according to their data, the Pentagon’s anti-IS operation (banned in Russia) “costs US taxpayers 600 thousand dollars per hour”, and by now total expenses in Iraq alone amounted to $ 819 billion (in Afghanistan they reached $ 750- ty billion).

“There is no doubt that these funds could be more usefully spent on the development of the United States itself,” the experts write.

According to them, "the destructiveness of the current situation is that the opponents of the United States are capable of solving the same tasks as the Americans, but for much less money." For example, “if a Tomahawk cruise missile costs one and a half million dollars, the standard shahid belt is one of the main means that militants use to sow panic and horror,” cost them no more than 150 dollars, the authors note.

Now America is not in the position to mindlessly spend fabulous sums on weapons. “Economic considerations should play a much larger role in formulating the country's defense policy,” they conclude.
Photos used:
Flickr / The US Army
119 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. demiurg
    demiurg 16 November 2016 10: 35
    +25
    Following the logic of the author, should the US army be armed with shaheed belts? recourse
    1. 210ox
      210ox 16 November 2016 10: 38
      +9
      Following the logic of the author, the States should not spend money on war at all .. What will they do then? Is it really charity?
      1. hirurg
        hirurg 16 November 2016 10: 47
        +4
        The United States has gone too far in its ideology to carry everything and everything.
        Slowly, the realization of the uselessness of spending giant funds begins to come.
        And when the vector changes, a stupor will come to love.
        1. iConst
          iConst 16 November 2016 11: 13
          +5
          Quote: hirurg
          Slowly, the realization of the uselessness of spending giant funds begins to come.

          Gradually, they have to admit that a dough freebie ends. The SGA did not live up to the hopes of the countries of the whole World that they would make the world safer and fairer, which they cracked and crack without ceasing.

          Lending through treasury is reduced on the one hand, and interest on debt servicing is already palpable on the other.
          Plus, absolutely everyone is slowly preparing to crawl out from under the dollar - another blow to the dough.
          If we still cover up the CIA’s multibillion-dollar drug business, then the Pendocs are getting very bad at all - such an empire requires rabid grandmothers.
          And puppets-anti-national proteges such as Merkel, Dutchman and others are not eternal and are always motivated to showdown without a "dad".

          So, stock up on popcorn.
          1. Thrall
            Thrall 16 November 2016 11: 21
            +13
            The armor is strong and our tanks ... cheaper smile

            (right - BT-7)
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 16 November 2016 11: 28
              +6
              Are you going to go to BT-7 against Abrams? wassat
              1. sergeybulkin
                sergeybulkin 16 November 2016 11: 33
                +15
                If you slowly sneak up behind, Khan Abramsu ... fellow
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 16 November 2016 11: 34
                  +3
                  It is difficult to sneak up on a tank whose visibility is many orders of magnitude better.
                  1. sergeybulkin
                    sergeybulkin 16 November 2016 11: 36
                    +5
                    Crawling out of the bush ... feel
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 16 November 2016 11: 37
                      +1
                      Bushes do not work against the thermal imager. laughing
                      1. Scoun
                        Scoun 16 November 2016 11: 55
                        +10
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        Bushes do not work against the thermal imager. laughing

                        Yes, looking at the thermal imager on the BT-7, everyone will think that this is a bunny in the bushes. )))
                    2. Vasyan1971
                      Vasyan1971 16 November 2016 19: 46
                      0
                      Quote: sergeybulkin
                      Crawling out of the bush ... feel

                      Volunteers, step forward. There were no volunteers ... © S. Matov
                  2. shinobi
                    shinobi 16 November 2016 13: 20
                    +3
                    Tell it to Iraqi and Yemeni partisans.
                2. Vasyan1971
                  Vasyan1971 16 November 2016 19: 44
                  0
                  Quote: sergeybulkin
                  If you slowly sneak up behind, Khan Abramsu ... fellow

                  Yeah! Something like this, they planned to tie mice to a cat on the tail of a bells ...
        2. sergeybulkin
          sergeybulkin 16 November 2016 11: 31
          +7
          The armaments of the US Army and of NATO as a whole are so expensive not because they are the most super-duper cool, but because private traders rivet it and it is profitable for them - the more expensive the better. And their superiority on our weapons is a big question! It is well known that the simpler the machine, the more reliable it is. For example, you can compare modern cars stuffed with electronics with injectors, etc., with old cars produced about 25 years ago - these are still running and they won’t do anything and you can easily repair them yourself. Try a new (any) sophisticated auto repair somewhere on the highway, or just do it?
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 16 November 2016 11: 54
            +2
            But everyone is buying new cars, because all this electronics is very useful. No one is running to buy old phones when there are new smartphones. Although they are radically more expensive, and repairing them is much more difficult.
            1. sergeybulkin
              sergeybulkin 16 November 2016 12: 01
              +4
              Well, of course, the new cars serve perfectly ... while under warranty, and a smartphone is an expensive toy no more, in which 90% of the functions are simply useless. Why is it interesting that old cell phones that are without an OS are in such great demand?
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 16 November 2016 12: 03
                +1
                Old cell phones also have an OS. wassat
                And how much do they sell old cell phones and how many smartphones?
                And about the functions, who use it to the full, and who do not need it. The market has a wide range of devices for every taste and pocket.
            2. Uncle Murzik
              Uncle Murzik 16 November 2016 12: 33
              +3
              BlackMokona is far from everything! I buy even though the second new Japanese car is not in the minimum configuration, but I definitely take mechanics, four-wheel drive, I try not to have rain or parking sensors and less electronic rubbish! and I have a push-button "Nokia" phone in a steel case with buttons for five years , has everything I need, talk, listen to books, navigation is all I need, and the rest is show-off
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 16 November 2016 12: 41
                +1
                And some people like to live by the standards and technologies of the 19th century, in the USA there are whole villages of such, and what? This does not change the general trend.
                1. Uncle Murzik
                  Uncle Murzik 16 November 2016 13: 10
                  +2
                  so the fact of the matter is when people begin to live not in commercials but in practice, with their brains, they will clearly understand what they need! and everyone will be happy! hi
                  1. Blackmokona
                    Blackmokona 16 November 2016 13: 15
                    0
                    For example, a ban on driving and the widespread introduction of autopilot will save tens of thousands of lives a year, but when will people change their minds?
                    1. mart-kot
                      mart-kot 16 November 2016 14: 22
                      +3
                      When this happens, the first woodpecker that flies to us will destroy our civilization. You young man can’t tell how many victims there will be if a hacker digs into your autopilot? One Kent drives to my garage for repairs, in Prada, he suddenly arrives in the UAZ with an ancient carburetor engine, I ask him why he says that he went on a business trip, the computer flew out from the pradik a couple of times, so he no longer runs the risk.
                      1. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 16 November 2016 14: 53
                        0
                        And how many victims will there be if ISIS handles the driver or the deversant picks the brakes?
            3. Vasyan1971
              Vasyan1971 16 November 2016 19: 49
              +1
              Quote: BlackMokona
              No one is running to buy old phones when there are new smartphones.

              Yes, I would love to buy a normal button player, but there’s either some kind of garbage or finally smartphones that I don’t need. Impose assortment, EPT!
      2. Tusv
        Tusv 16 November 2016 11: 17
        +3
        210okv Following the logic of the author, the States should not spend money on war at all .. What will they do then?

        Make the moneylender not to trade money, so Sarah will first hand over 3/4 beds in the rent, along with the body. Obama mumbled, but could you pay 2% for security, Trump immediately says - drive off the money and we will not touch you. He will not share his Sarah with anyone, which means that politics will be more aggressive, but with soothing rhetoric
      3. ydjin
        ydjin 16 November 2016 12: 24
        +1
        Quote: 210ox
        Following the logic of the author, the States should not spend money on war at all .. What will they do then? Is it really charity?

        I think that humanity has come to the choice of either promoting global confrontation and war for total annihilation, or spending money on developing production in the poorest countries and suppressing radicals of all stripes! What to invest in weapons, it is better to give money to the poor for self-sufficiency! Allegorically, instead of thoughtless help, give people a fishing rod so that they catch fish for food!
        1. Cat man null
          Cat man null 16 November 2016 12: 34
          +3
          Quote: ydjin
          I think that humanity has come to the choice of either promoting global confrontation and war for total annihilation, or spending money on developing production in the poorest countries and suppressing radicals of all stripes

          - everything seems to be correct
          - only where does the "development of production in the poorest countries"?!
          - the same Trump came with slogans about the development of all this ... in the USA, do not believe belay

          Quote: ydjin
          What to invest in weapons, it’s better to give money to the poor

          - exactly
          - The Union has already given
          - the money was successfully consumed, and the debts had to be written off
          - Durakoff Nem to repeat such experiments, IMHO

          Quote: ydjin
          Allegorically, instead of thoughtless help, give people a fishing rod so that they catch fish for food

          - in plain text: the "fishing rod" will be sold, the proceeds will be spent on drink laughing

          Something like this .
        2. Peacemaker
          Peacemaker 17 November 2016 08: 26
          0
          But what about the golden billion? There are a lot of average-income mouths, there are not enough resources. So they destroy people by all means, and make the remaining people beggars.
    2. Terminolol
      Terminolol 16 November 2016 11: 21
      0
      Following the logic, it is time for us to finish the experiments with missile weapons in Syria and switch to artillery. The accuracy is not much lower, but the cost ...
    3. Denchik
      Denchik 16 November 2016 16: 18
      0
      He writes so cheaper and better laughing
      1. Kasym
        Kasym 16 November 2016 17: 55
        +1
        Come on. It is clear what was meant. That new sight on the Su-24 "replaces" the targeting system for single-use, precision-guided munitions. hi
    4. APASUS
      APASUS 16 November 2016 20: 26
      0
      Quote: demiurg
      Following the logic of the author, should the US army be armed with shaheed belts? recourse

      This text clearly defines that it is not necessary to create women in a jeep with a machine gun
      F-22, the delivery of tasks for such aircraft is absent in the countries of the US Army presence.
  2. fzr1000
    fzr1000 16 November 2016 10: 37
    +4
    The Führer could tell the States a lot about the high-tech war, but will they really hear? Only in the next world if.
  3. m.cempbell
    m.cempbell 16 November 2016 10: 37
    +6
    In the global war for survival, the cost of weapons will play practically no role, but on the scale of regional conflicts, and so on. ATO under the auspices of the United States itself is a profitable business, and no one will cut back on financing.
  4. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 16 November 2016 10: 41
    +3
    A delusional question implies a delusional answer. But appreciate ...
    A full-scale war is not waged for paper money, but at the expense of mobilizing the economy. And there are completely different candy wrappers.
  5. Mobik
    Mobik 16 November 2016 10: 42
    0
    Well so what is the matter? Arm your infantry with belts of martyrs and let them fight.
  6. guzik007
    guzik007 16 November 2016 10: 48
    +2
    I recalled an episode from "12 Moments of Spring":
    Hitler about the Americans: "these Americans will be destroyed by their own technology"
  7. Altona
    Altona 16 November 2016 10: 48
    +3
    Unmanned aircraft, mini-radar, digital secure communications, GPS-Glonass, BMP tanks, modern ATGMs and MANPADS are actively used by terrorist armies. What is crying about? This is all the propaganda noise that they only have martyrs' belts. In fact, instead of a shahid, a mortar bomb with an old telephone, a car stuffed with explosives, a gas cylinder with a welded shank for a home-grown mortar, and any other mechanisms are quite used for themselves. Cyber ​​war too-sites, messengers, jihad hackers. So all network-centric warfare technologies are used to the fullest. Another thing is that the use of many technologies is still insanely expensive and it takes time and demand to reduce their cost.
  8. NEXUS
    NEXUS 16 November 2016 10: 48
    +7
    It has already been said so many times that the US Army cannot conduct more than one local war simultaneously. And today they are everywhere and in some of these countries there is a war. At the same time, after 45 years, not a single US military company won. Someone will say, "How? And Iraq? I will answer-And now everything is calm in Iraq and nothing is exploding and the American soldiers are not dying?" Afghanistan has the same story.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 16 November 2016 14: 45
        +4
        Quote: iConst
        And before - did you win? Well, to one mug? They with third-rate underdivisions of the Wehrmacht, with the practical absence of German aviation in the 44/45th in the Ardennes, almost went through ... if.

        I read the memoirs of the translator Stalin, who attended the meeting of Stalin, Roosevelt and Cherchel regarding the opening of the second front ... Stalin asked them-How many divisions can you provide for the second front? Those answered proudly-30. Stalin made a sign to the translator, they say they went from here, and said in his ear — Do these clowns really think that there is still besides them? ... to the question, “What is it?” Stalin answered, “I have 330 divisions on the eastern front.
        Quote: iConst
        That’s what pendocs can do. It’s like hanging other people's medals on yourself.

        But are they not going to do this to Syria? Our VKS and the Syrians will clean the country, and the mattresses will famously go to Raqqa with flags and fireworks without any special support from ISIS ... and then they crow that they defeated Daesh.
        Quote: iConst
        They and the nuclear bombardment partly out of fear of butting on land.

        In cities in which there was not even military infrastructure, equipment and soldiers.
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 16 November 2016 11: 30
      +2
      Libya, Gaddafi killed, the war is won, Yugoslavia is a complete and unconditional victory, the remnants of Yugoslavia are drawn into the EU and NATO, Afghanistan and Iraq are kept in check despite resistance, and that until now fighters are dying, the security forces are dying in Chechnya. In your second Chechen we lost? Well and so on
      1. iConst
        iConst 16 November 2016 11: 47
        +2
        Quote: BlackMokona
        Libya, Gaddafi killed, the war is won, Yugoslavia is a complete and unconditional victory, the remnants of Yugoslavia are drawn into the EU and NATO, Afghanistan and Iraq are kept in check despite resistance, and that until now fighters are dying, the security forces are dying in Chechnya. In your second Chechen we lost? Well and so on

        First: A war (as a means to an end) is considered "won" if these goals are achieved.
        If the goals are not achieved, then how? In Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, goals are not achieved.

        Secondly, they, like criminals, have always "signed up for the blood" of others - NATO allies. As in the case of Yugoslavia (and in other cases too).

        So that - do not distort.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 16 November 2016 11: 50
          +1
          The war in Libya, the goal of overthrowing Gaddafi completed
          War in Afghanistan drug control and punishment of Taliban executed.
          The war in Iraq, the overthrow of Saddam and the control of oil, has been completed.
          Parsing Yugoslavia and devouring, completed.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 16 November 2016 14: 53
            +5
            Quote: BlackMokona
            The war in Libya, the goal of overthrowing Gaddafi completed

            Is everything quiet and peaceful in Libya? Gaddafi was not overthrown by mattresses, but by radical Libyans. The goal was to establish a pro-American regime. Do you think the goal has been achieved?

            Quote: BlackMokona
            War in Afghanistan drug control and punishment of Taliban executed.

            Come on ... then the drug traffic has increased by an order of magnitude.
            Quote: BlackMokona
            The war in Iraq, the overthrow of Saddam and the control of oil, has been completed.

            They overthrew Saddam, and received a very long uncontrolled hemorrhoids in this country both in Iraq itself and beyond. I’m not at all surprised if they soon begin to take hostages in large numbers in the USA and Europe, to blow up apartment buildings and metro stations. This is a feast of victory, dear. The mattresses have no idea which aspen nest they have smashed onto their heads.
            Quote: BlackMokona
            Parsing Yugoslavia and devouring, completed.

            Everything would be fine, but only our paratroopers confused them with all the cards and the result was not the same. Not performed.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 16 November 2016 15: 35
              +1
              1. Yes, now there is a pro-American regime, in January a single government was created, now they are finishing the last non-aligned.
              2. Was such a goal in the United States? Or vice versa increase the number of drugs going to Russia?
              3. How much, how many years they have been tearing there nestingly, and that the effect is at the level of a bunch.
              4. Than not that? Even Serbia and the EU signed an association and filed an application for accession, and the EU, according to the Lisbon Treaty, is also a military alliance. Complete victory, commandos did not change anything at all.
            2. iConst
              iConst 16 November 2016 17: 30
              +2
              Quote: NEXUS
              Is everything quiet and peaceful in Libya? Gaddafi was not overthrown by mattresses, but by radical Libyans. The goal was to establish a pro-American regime. Do you think the goal has been achieved?

              No, well, the mattress makers did a great job there on the self-awareness of the "oppressed" opposition. Babosov and the trunks were thrown at them.
              Now they don’t know what to do with them. Wards of cartridges on foot erotic journey send ... laughing

              Our BlackMokona opponent invented the hell-knows-what. He jumped out of parallel reality.
          2. iConst
            iConst 16 November 2016 17: 08
            +2
            Quote: BlackMokona
            The war in Libya, the goal of overthrowing Gaddafi is fulfilled.

            Once again - the goal was not the displacement of Gaddafi as such, but replacement of the Gaddafi regime with the pro-American - Not only not fulfilled, pendos suffered reputational losses. I repeat - NOT DONE.
            There was only one personal enemy of the SGA - Bin Laden. All. Gaddafi until a certain point suited them, until he was excited against the buck.

            Quote: BlackMokona
            War in Afghanistan drug control and punishment of Taliban executed.

            Punishing the Taliban ... Hmmm. It sounds like "punishing ants" - one bit me, and I punished them - knocked off an anthill ... Isn't it funny yourself?
            A related task is to increase drug production, but implemented. But there is no control what they would like. Half the work done can be considered completed?

            Quote: BlackMokona
            The war in Iraq, the overthrow of Saddam and the control of oil, has been completed.

            Annealing again. See about Gaddafi - the same thing. Until now, they drive Daish through the deserts. Control ... yeah ... - NOT done.


            Quote: BlackMokona
            Parsing Yugoslavia and devouring, completed.

            Initially, the SGA called for the integrity of Yugoslavia, so your statement about the target thesis is incorrect.
            NATO participated in the military operation - approximately 250 aircraft of the SGA and approximately 150 aircraft of other NATO members.

            And we are talking about "one mug".

            So everything is past the checkout. Following your logic, they won the Vietnamese campaign - but what?
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 16 November 2016 17: 22
              0
              1. That is, the current government of Libya is not about the American, although it consists entirely of those who stood up who helped the United States? wassat
              2. So take revenge for the destruction of the Mujahideen who supported the United States. At the moment, the Taliban is greatly weakened and does not control the power in the country, after the departure of some of the militants in ISIS, the Taliban may well capitalize.
              3.So, for several years the situation in Iraq was stable, and all the troops were withdrawn until the operations in Syria turned into ISIS invasion, now ISIS is thrown back to Syria, and the troops will be withdrawn again.
              4. The United States calls for a lot of things, for world peace for example. Believe everything?
              The United States has more than 5000 aircraft, and would like to have one mug easily. Plus, I never claimed that in one mug, although now harya the EU and the United States it is almost the same mug.
              1. iConst
                iConst 16 November 2016 17: 56
                +2
                Quote: BlackMokona
                1. That is, the current government of Libya is not about the American, although it consists entirely of those who stood up who helped the United States? wassat

                Yes Yes exactly. These guys are fishing in troubled waters and are ready for a lot - just come on loot. Pendocs are offended - how quickly they forgot the benefactors. wassat wassat wassat

                Quote: BlackMokona
                2. So take revenge for the destruction of the Mujahideen who supported the United States. At the moment, the Taliban is greatly weakened and does not control the power in the country, after the departure of some of the militants in ISIS, the Taliban may well capitalize.

                Yes Yes. For centuries, no one could do anything, and only the knights of the light went ... Tin.
                Afghanistan is such a place where no one controls anything but his toilet. laughing

                Quote: BlackMokona
                3.So, for several years the situation in Iraq was stable, and all the troops were withdrawn until the operations in Syria turned into ISIS invasion, now ISIS is thrown back to Syria, and the troops will be withdrawn again.

                Listen - increase your level of knowledge - read where and how Daish originated. Your egg laid a chicken ...

                Quote: BlackMokona
                4. The United States calls for a lot of things, for world peace for example. Believe everything?

                We start trolling, right? You chronologically read about Yugoslavia and understand that at that time nobody even thought about the EU and Yugoslavia.
                Your heresy begins to annoy.

                Quote: BlackMokona
                The United States has more than 5000 aircraft, and would like to have one mug easily.

                So they didn’t want to in Vietnam? laughing laughing
                Not really funny anymore.

                Quote: BlackMokona
                Plus, I never claimed that in one mug, although now harya the EU and the United States it is almost the same mug.

                Yost! Mother! We fucking said that !!! We have been talking for a century that we have tried the pendocs for the first time and, for the last time on the hike, to climb into Vietnam, we were smashed to the ground and swore to do something in one go.

                And you got in and started to prove the opposite!

                And the fact that the EU and the SGA is one and the same mug ... it's stupid. Puppets in governments are manageable, but up to a point.
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 17 November 2016 10: 34
                  0
                  1. In what place have you forgotten? wassat
                  2. Yes, so the pro-American government is still in power
                  3. Daish arose from a small group fighting against the occupation of Iraq, and then dumped into Syria.
                  4. Well, how was the year of the creation of the EU, and the year of the war in Yugoslavia?
                  5. What ended the Vietnam War? Is not the Paris world? Which, after the withdrawal of US troops, was violated by North Vietnam? And the war continued, but the US did not want to fit in again for South Vietnam?
                  6. The United States did not try to capture Vietnam, they defended South Vietnam from the North, as it’s very bad in history wassat
        2. Strength
          Strength 16 November 2016 17: 08
          0
          And how to reach them in the same Afghanistan? In Iraq? Genghis Khan conquered Afghanistan, poisoned wells, demolished villages, cut out the local population, until everyone was cut out. If this were done, then the United States and the USSR would have completed their tasks much faster. What would you say to such a victory? But since the wars are now some kind of humanitarian, alas. And so I think all the same, the United States still won, if there weren’t the Taliban, we would already be in Kazakhstan and we would have to fight. Then the number of losses of both warring parties. Then the Taliban receive replenishment from Pakistan. Will invade Pakistan?
  9. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 16 November 2016 10: 50
    +1
    In continuation.
    if the Tomahawk cruise missile costs $ 150 million, the standard suicide belt - one of the main means used by the militants to sow panic and terror - costs them no more than $ XNUMX "
    Author, remind me that something has become my memory, how many explosives are there in Tamagavka and how many are included in the standard martyr’s belt? And are they equal in action? Well, if Tamagavkom bus stop .....
    The question is not how much it costs, but what to do with it in a combat situation. Repair, maintenance, personnel (they decide everything. One is wounded from the calculation and not replaced by anyone. From the USA to write out?), Logistics (1 tons of security per 20 ton of weapons)
    1. Orionvit
      Orionvit 16 November 2016 16: 36
      0
      While the dollar is circulating on the planet Earth as an international currency, figuratively speaking, all countries of the world will work for the American economy and the army. And therefore, they do not particularly care for them, how much, for example, one "tomahawk", or for example an F-35, costs.
  10. Kosmotoga
    Kosmotoga 16 November 2016 10: 56
    +1
    underestimating the adversary, as in this article, can cause even more damage than its real potential.
  11. Kosmotoga
    Kosmotoga 16 November 2016 10: 57
    0
    and who knows what happened? in the news....

    Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matvienko says an urgent government meeting will be held at noon
    1. Anatole Klim
      Anatole Klim 16 November 2016 11: 06
      0
      Quote: Kosmotoga
      Valentina Matvienko announced that an urgent government meeting will be held at noon

      The government’s press service has already said that today's meeting will be scheduled. They decided to postpone it from Thursday to Wednesday, since November 17, Dmitry Medvedev will participate in events with the president, reports TASS.
  12. igorka357
    igorka357 16 November 2016 11: 00
    0
    Stop it, the authors started singing Trump’s song, why the hell do we fight somewhere, we need to restore our America! And these authors, by the way, are dancing right, I won’t be surprised if in a couple of years they will be some kind of military experts from the government !!!
  13. Old26
    Old26 16 November 2016 11: 09
    +2
    The next opus from NIC logic authors are not entirely friends.
    Quote: guzik007
    I recalled an episode from "12 Moments of Spring":
    Hitler about the Americans: "these Americans will be destroyed by their own technology"

    Well, in-1 from the movie "17 Moments of Spring", and in-2 - the words do not belong to Hitler

    Quote: NEXUS
    It has already been said so many times that the US Army cannot conduct more than one local war simultaneously. And today they are everywhere and in some of these countries there is a war. At the same time, after 45 years, not a single US military company won. Someone will say, "How? And Iraq? I will answer-And now everything is calm in Iraq and nothing is exploding and the American soldiers are not dying?" Afghanistan has the same story.

    Andrei! After WWII, the question is whether the country won the war or lost is always very slippery. This may apply not only to America, but also to any country: Egypt, Syria, Israel, the Soviet Union. The question is what was the purpose of the war. And only from this we must proceed in assessing whether she won or not
  14. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 16 November 2016 11: 17
    +2
    There was some material about how the United States "masters" the North. Somewhere in Alaska it was necessary to deliver the equipment. How was it done? We took the most powerful tractors available. They were loaded with an ocean of fuel. Along the way, they threw in equipment with a very large margin. Then this whole super-expedition rode through the snow, losing and throwing whatever it got. Something got there, hurray.
    Cool. Brutal. Stupid ... This is not the development of the North, this is the development of funds that someone should give, and the "masters" will destroy them. Our loaf does not look at all against the background of these trucks ... but we really mastered the North. The same approach applies to the army. You can flood several separate operations (and your pocket, of course), but you can't fight like that.
    Just run out of money, as practice has shown, even at the printing press, the resource is not endless. And when every penny has to be plowed up really ... If the US Army has to really fight further, this will not have enough resources of the whole planet, not like the USA. And to some it began to reach ...
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 16 November 2016 12: 12
      +2
      That's what cities in Alaska look like
      Compare with Chukotka and Kamchatka?
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 16 November 2016 12: 17
        +11
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Compare with Chukotka and Kamchatka?

        Anadyr Chukotka
      2. RASKAT
        RASKAT 16 November 2016 13: 00
        +2
        But all our small and indigenous peoples live and prosper. They have tremendous benefits for fishing, studying at universities, carrying and storing firearms. You will not remind, where did the majority of the indigenous population of the USA and Alaska go the same way? How many millions have been killed, in all sorts of sophisticated ways, there are smallpox blankets there, one purchase of scalps of which is worth. And where are they now?

        This is what the Indian reservations look like now.
      3. Altona
        Altona 16 November 2016 13: 09
        +2
        Quote: voyaka uh
        That's what cities in Alaska look like
        Compare with Chukotka and Kamchatka?

        ------------------------------------
        In comparison with the Khanty-Mansiysk so-so.
      4. fzr1000
        fzr1000 16 November 2016 20: 56
        0
        What is so cool in rusty pickups?
      5. Orionvit
        Orionvit 17 November 2016 08: 59
        0
        That's what cities in Alaska look like
        What's this? The view from the postcard, along with the tour bus in the foreground? Then beautiful.
  15. pts-m
    pts-m 16 November 2016 11: 23
    +1
    As the people say ... more than once glut oneself, it is difficult to switch to a modest lifestyle ...
  16. Old26
    Old26 16 November 2016 11: 37
    0
    Quote: Anatol Klim
    The government’s press service has already said that today's meeting will be scheduled. They decided to postpone it from Thursday to Wednesday, since November 17, Dmitry Medvedev will participate in events with the president, reports TASS.

    If you decide to postpone, then in any case this is not a scheduled meeting. The planned should have taken place tomorrow

    Technological effectiveness, or rather high-tech weapons cannot be either underestimated or overestimated. Everything should be in moderation.
  17. Partisan Kramaha
    Partisan Kramaha 16 November 2016 11: 38
    0
    Quote: BlackMokona
    Are you going to go to BT-7 against Abrams? wassat

    And how many BT-7 can be riveted for the price of one abrams? A hundred? Maybe he will be a couple, the rest will tear it into rags
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 16 November 2016 11: 43
      0
      And how many people will die in this? And it will be quite a few dozens, given its superiority in speed over the BT-7. The United States has two more people, you can’t throw corpses.
      52 on tracks, at BT-7
      versus 66,8 for Abrams
      1. Partisan Kramaha
        Partisan Kramaha 16 November 2016 11: 47
        0
        Don’t tell my slippers. When the blows hit you from all sides, take a look at the horseradish.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 16 November 2016 11: 52
          0
          To strike from all sides, the BT-7 must either break through the front if we look at the normal situation, which is absolutely unrealistic against modern anti-tank weapons. Or if we take a spherical battle in the open field. then they should catch up with Abrams, which they cannot do in any way because of its superiority in speed, firing range, the ability to conduct accurate fire on the move, huge superiority in defeat range, total superiority in armor penetration and armor penetration. wink
          1. Partisan Kramaha
            Partisan Kramaha 16 November 2016 12: 00
            0
            And who told you that BTshek will not have adequate support by means of suppressing Fri? And even if you take a hypothetical battle in an open field, building hundreds of BTs with an interval of 30 meters will take THREE kilometers! When you try to keep the distance from one, he will inevitably approach others , and there they knock out a hodovka and have a fixed barn. Still remember the difference in dimensions. Who is easier to get into?
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 16 November 2016 12: 08
              0
              Well, let it be three kilometers, they are lined up, and he goes perpendicular to their formation. And he will not care.
              It’s difficult for them to knock out a hodovka, for this BT should catch Abrams, which is unrealistic because of its superiority in speed.
              It is much easier for him because of the total superiority of the OMS. Not to mention that he is firing, long before the BT entered the fire zone, and they cannot enter this zone because of Abrams’ superior speed and power reserve, and he is invulnerable from all angles and directions from all BT shells, at a distance of more than 500 meters.
              1. Partisan Kramaha
                Partisan Kramaha 16 November 2016 12: 15
                0
                In short, it turns out that the BTs will not surround the abrash? Holy naivety. Advantage in speed will not help. It’s impossible to keep track of everyone right away and this will lead to an error. And sho straight gusli and abrams rollers from a kilometer will withstand BT?
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 16 November 2016 12: 27
                  0
                  No need to follow everyone, you can just move away at full speed, no one will catch up then. While there are goals in sight, why take a steam bath?
                  Yes, they will withstand, not to mention that Abrams will not come up to a kilometer.
                  Since effective fire Abrams can lead from 2 kilometers on the move, and three kilometers while standing. We are considering a move, esno. The use of missiles by Abrams is naturally forgotten, because it is not included in the standard kit even though the gun is adapted for firing LAHAT missiles from a range of 8 kilometers.
                  The armor of BT-7 can be ignored, since its forehead is half as much as Abrams’s weakest point, and breaking through Abrams 930+ can penetrate any WWII tank anywhere.
              2. Cat man null
                Cat man null 16 November 2016 12: 22
                0
                Quote: BlackMokona
                It is much easier for him because of the total superiority of the OMS. Not to mention that he is firing, long before the BT entered the fire zone, and they cannot enter this zone because of Abrams’ superior speed and power reserve, and he is invulnerable from all angles and directions from all BT shells, at a distance of more than 500 meters

                - I enjoy reading ... because everything is correct ... as if by notes request
                “But do not remind me how much that Abrams has ammunition?” wink
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 16 November 2016 12: 33
                  0
                  40 shells, but given Abrams’ superiority in speed and power reserve, he can exit the battle and replenish. BT-7, in order to overtake the replenishing Abrams, refueling will also be required. And further on a new one. Or if there is no supply in our field, then the battle will end, about 30 BT-7 will burn in the field, and all tanks will stand far apart without fuel. smile
                  1. Cat man null
                    Cat man null 16 November 2016 12: 38
                    0
                    Quote: BlackMokona
                    given the superiority of Abrams in speed and power reserve, he can exit the battle, and replenish

                    - enchanting. And there is no white piano in the bushes, by any chance? On the "battlefield"? wink
                    - Have you ever tried to load a BC thread into a tank?
                    - my doubts ...

                    Ok, play on ... in tanks laughing
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 16 November 2016 12: 51
                      0
                      I gave both options with and without supply machines.
                      1. Egor rustic
                        Egor rustic 17 November 2016 07: 17
                        0
                        you called the maximum speed of the tanks on the pavement. but I forgot that the BT-7 on the asphalt rides 80km per hour.
                        refueling and loading the abrams is several times longer than just refueling the bt-7 it is shorter to flee the abrams until america itself. otherwise a scribe.
                        but all this in a pure vacuum.
                        in reality, for one abrams, one 41-year-old anti-tank gun is enough.
                        and in war, the ability to organize production facilities will win.
                        Germany had the most powerful engineering + the entire economy of Europe. even supposedly neutral countries worked for Germany. the same Switzerland and Sweden.
                        but Germany (the European Union of those times) lost the USSR in the quantity and quality of weapons produced and ammunition. what matters is not the economy and manufacturability, but the ability to organize.
              3. ydjin
                ydjin 16 November 2016 12: 35
                0
                Quote: BlackMokona
                Well, let it be three kilometers, they are lined up, and he goes perpendicular to their formation. And he will not care.
                It’s difficult for them to knock out a hodovka, for this BT should catch Abrams, which is unrealistic because of its superiority in speed.
                It is much easier for him because of the total superiority of the OMS. Not to mention that he is firing, long before the BT entered the fire zone, and they cannot enter this zone because of Abrams’ superior speed and power reserve, and he is invulnerable from all angles and directions from all BT shells, at a distance of more than 500 meters.

                What are the WOT sheep pulled up? Let's TNW fucking, Abrashi will be covered! wassat
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 16 November 2016 12: 51
                  0
                  And here is the Tank Arcade HERE?
            2. RASKAT
              RASKAT 16 November 2016 12: 38
              0
              What is small then we will strike with our cruise missiles with calibers there or Iskanders at their weakest point. In warehouses with Coca-Cola, ice cream and toilet paper. The enemy will be stunned by such insidiousness; his morality will fall below the plinth, how to fight without such things necessary in the war. And then we are not like BT-7, but we are gouging them on BEARS
    2. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 16 November 2016 17: 50
      0
      Quote: Partizan Kramaha
      Quote: BlackMokona
      Are you going to go to BT-7 against Abrams? wassat

      And how many BT-7 can be riveted for the price of one abrams? A hundred? Maybe he will be a couple, the rest will tear it into rags

      You don't think. The troll took advantage of you and "tore you into rags", and on the case. A realistic approach to war is not to drive relatively weak armored personnel carriers to a relatively strong tank. This is exactly the approach of the "rich" who become poor so quickly. It is necessary to enter the tank with an anti-tank missile system, with an RPG, with a rocket. Those that cost hundreds of times cheaper than a tank, but hit it effectively.
      The man-weapon link must be highly effective and relatively inexpensive. It is possible, and it is slowly being done. But this is ten times more difficult than just pouring out a tub of money. It takes a lot of efforts of different people, minds, talents ... and skillfully invested money is also needed.
      Riveting cheap stuff, hoping to overwhelm the enemy with it, is at least stupid.
  18. Wolka
    Wolka 16 November 2016 11: 45
    0
    based on the premise that war is primarily a business, and all expenses are at the expense of the victim, the author is really right
  19. Bashibuzuk
    Bashibuzuk 16 November 2016 11: 50
    0
    I propose to put the entire American army in the belts of martyrs.
    And explode at once. It will be ... mmm ... enchanting.
    And, practically, for free. You can arrange a show, pay off with interest.
  20. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 16 November 2016 11: 59
    0
    Scoun,
    Quote: Scoun
    Quote: BlackMokona
    Bushes do not work against the thermal imager. laughing

    Yes, looking at the thermal imager on the BT-7, everyone will think that this is a bunny in the bushes. )))

    A bunny of 400 horses, where did you see these, at the government's trough? wassat
    1. ydjin
      ydjin 16 November 2016 12: 39
      0
      Obviously, people outplayed in simulations! laughing
  21. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 16 November 2016 12: 13
    0
    While the fat one dries, the thin one dies, Reagan said. Turns out he was a visionary.
  22. RASKAT
    RASKAT 16 November 2016 12: 26
    +1
    The magazine is wrong, the Pentagon needs to double the budget at least twice, and let it go to all the advanced crap (forgive me, I didn't find a suitable cultural word) on all sorts of lasers, fighting grasshoppers, floating irons, war sparrows. Railguns, Zamvolty. At the same time, the F 22 was written off, the F 35 is still not delivered, the aircraft carrier has been building for the last two decades, the last tank plant in Ohio was closed, and further down the list. What to say? "Comrades are going the right way" smile
    1. ydjin
      ydjin 16 November 2016 12: 53
      0
      Quote: RASKAT
      The magazine is wrong, the Pentagon needs to double the budget at least twice, and let it go to all the advanced crap (forgive me, I didn't find a suitable cultural word) on all sorts of lasers, fighting grasshoppers, floating irons, war sparrows. Railguns, Zamvolty. At the same time, the F 22 was written off, the F 35 is still not delivered, the aircraft carrier has been building for the last two decades, the last tank plant in Ohio was closed, and further down the list. What to say? "Comrades are going the right way" smile

      About F-22 I have not heard about decommissioning yet, they are sawing 35 but they are not sawing in any way, apparently the files are stupid! Yes, they do not produce abrashka, but they are upgrading it intensely! So do not relax! Want Peace get ready for war! It’s not worth it to curry dear forum users, but we won’t give up! soldier
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 16 November 2016 12: 54
      0
      The F-22 has not been decommissioned, the F35B is already in service, the aircraft carrier has been under construction for only a few years and is already floating. And so on the list
  23. andr327
    andr327 16 November 2016 12: 52
    +1
    In the event of a global war, its high-tech part will last a maximum of a week, and then whoever has easier and more autonomy will win.
    1. ydjin
      ydjin 16 November 2016 13: 07
      0
      Quote: andr327
      In the event of a global war, its high-tech part will last a maximum of a week, and then whoever has easier and more autonomy will win.

      The global war will begin with high-tech weapons, but will end with stones and batons! Well, maybe the Kalashnikov assault rifle will survive. belay
      1. RASKAT
        RASKAT 16 November 2016 13: 26
        +1
        I absolutely agree, that’s why they certainly won’t start between the superpowers, at least not directly.
        1. ydjin
          ydjin 16 November 2016 13: 37
          0
          Quote: RASKAT
          I absolutely agree, that’s why they certainly won’t start between the superpowers, at least not directly.

          I agree with you, Trump is a programmer, just like Putin, I hope they find a mutually beneficial solution for our parties!
          1. RASKAT
            RASKAT 16 November 2016 13: 47
            0
            I hope they find a mutually beneficial solution for our parties.

            It is difficult to assume that there will be an unambiguous redistribution of zones of influence. And it’s hard to tell anyone whom it would be for us. We would initially crush Ukraine for ourselves, the rest can wait. ALTHOUGH......... smile
  24. Karaul73
    Karaul73 16 November 2016 14: 00
    0
    800 billion !!! Yes, for the money you can plant half the deserts of Africa green. It is somehow expensive for America to bombard countries and plunder entire continents. But, however, somewhere they weld.
    1. RASKAT
      RASKAT 16 November 2016 15: 56
      0
      It's simple, they bring colored green paper to the defeated countries, and they export real raw materials. Oil, Gas, Gold, and then on the list.
  25. yellow
    yellow 16 November 2016 14: 26
    0
    For example, "if the Tomahawk cruise missile costs $ 150 million, the standard suicide belt - one of the main means used by the militants to sow panic and horror - does not cost them more than $ XNUMX," the authors note.


    Such examples make one doubt the suitability of the authors of the analysis for, in fact, analytical activity.
  26. MarioG
    MarioG 16 November 2016 14: 55
    0
    How much can you quote this yellow newspaper as you wipe your snot from emotion? Straight is already simply amazing enviable tenacity. fool
  27. Old26
    Old26 16 November 2016 15: 25
    0
    Quote: RASKAT
    At the same time, they wrote off F 22, they didn’t deliver F 35, the aircraft carrier has been building the last ten years,

    It is clear that all these are high-tech weapons of the enemy. But why so frankly To lie?
    Have you written off the F-22? Do not tell me when this significant event happened? And whether it happened in this reality.
    Will the F-35 be delivered? To the troops? 2016 of them were delivered in July 194. Note. Our adversary has this third generation of aircraft with stealth technology. First, the F-117 has already been written off. Yes, there are problems with the F-35, as well as with the F-22. But here our "stealth" T-50 will not even be brought to a military series. And why? Probably also problems. But we are silent about ours, we push the enemy out.
    Well, what about the aircraft carrier. Well, they’d write what is being built SECOND DECADE, this could be understood. Since it was laid down in the last decade - 2009, it was launched in 2013 - in this decade. It would be a joke. But it is not built TWO DECADES. True, you may have some other course of time, I do not know. And seven years with us is equal to 20 years with you - then I apologize
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 16 November 2016 15: 36
      0
      F-117 is not decommissioned, but withdrawn from service and transferred to storage ..
      1. Egor rustic
        Egor rustic 17 November 2016 07: 37
        0
        when the latest weapons (the best in the world) are transferred to storage does this mean something?
        for example, the dollars spent on the F-22 are 10-15 times less than the dollars spent than the f-15, f-16 (in terms of the current cost of dollars)
        despite the fact that the f-15 and f-16 in a couple of years were not the most modern.
        that's the question so why is the release of f-22 discontinued by the richest country in the world.
      2. Egor rustic
        Egor rustic 17 November 2016 07: 48
        0
        Yes, we also removed the MiG-15 from service.
  28. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 16 November 2016 16: 57
    0
    ..... set the Pentagon's annual military budget of $ 1.
    President of the United States of America * Donald John Trump.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 16 November 2016 17: 23
      +1
      Trump stands for a radical increase in the military budget of the United States and NATO. You didn’t look at his campaign slogans, even on the TopVar site laughing
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 16 November 2016 17: 44
        0
        Quote: BlackMokona
        You didn’t look at his campaign slogans, even on the TopVar site

        I admit I did not look request
        I was not at all interested in how this talented actor sold himself to American voters. Even if he did, it would not change my firm opinion that the Trump team is tough and pragmatic politicians. And no "restructuring", collapse of NATO, etc. they are not included in the strategic course of the United States.
        PS This was an irony and just a joke). Well, how else do you order commenting on analytics from NI? laughing
      2. Egor rustic
        Egor rustic 17 November 2016 07: 46
        0
        the campaign and you looked the wrong way. NATO was not going to feed Tram.
        At their own expense, gentlemen, comrades of NATO, at their own expense.
  29. Old26
    Old26 16 November 2016 21: 44
    0
    Quote: BlackMokona
    F-117 is not decommissioned, but withdrawn from service and transferred to storage ..

    Sorry, inaccurately expressed. Of course removed from service
  30. Weyland
    Weyland 17 November 2016 01: 24
    0
    I remembered the old joke:
    The US is not afraid of a war with China - because their Javelin is guaranteed to be cut by any Chinese tank.
    And China is not afraid of a war with the United States - because any Chinese tank is much cheaper than the Javelin!
  31. Zhnec
    Zhnec 17 November 2016 06: 44
    0
    The authors of the article either do not understand the essence of things or simply pretended to be fools. They do not seem to know that an expensive weapon is the same product as bread. Someone makes money on this. And the more expensive the product, the greater the profit.
  32. Jubilee
    Jubilee 17 November 2016 11: 19
    0
    Mattresses sawed and will cut the budget. The machine is working - what else is needed?
  33. Orionvit
    Orionvit 17 November 2016 11: 28
    0
    Quote: Peacemaker
    There are a lot of average-income mouths, there are not enough resources

    Just for mouths with an average income enough. Not enough for those countries that alone consume 40% of the world's resources. And also those who instead of a normal apartment need a skyscraper, instead of a family house, a palace, instead of a car, a fleet of limousines, instead of a pleasure boat, an ocean yacht, and instead of an average income, they need billions, or even all the money of the world. For those who are overwhelmed by the exorbitant greed and thirst for power, there will always be few.