North Korea alone has a million men in active forces and can increase that many times larger while Finland and Sweden have a total of 50k soldiers. Finland and Sweden made NATO weaker, not stronger.
North Korea has enough conventional artillery within range to flatten Seoul in 12 hours. Most of it is underground and can't be stopped.
If NATO attacks Russia, you may as well scratch Seoul off the map.
That’s assuming 1. They actually have this mythical number of guns 2. Kim wouldn’t immediately flip on Russia if shit pops off if it means even slight personal gain for himself
It's very well known that they do. I lived 10 years outside of Ft. SILL, and heard that many times, from arty guys that spent a lot of time on that boarder....
Then they surely gave the number of batteries? No large city has ever been leveled by artillery even with thousands of batteries firing at once. See Stalingrad, Leningrad, Berlin, any other city,
You need navies and air forces to win wars, not just one million dudes with AK’s. How do you reason that adding more countries and manpower hurts NATO, that’s objectively 50k more troops than if they hadn’t added them.
Finland doubled the length of the border NATO has to defend now but didn't add any significant military capabilities. The USA has to send 10s of thousands troops to protect that border but the USA has limited resources and is falling short on hiring quotas so where are they getting those 10s of thousands troops? From other borders meaning it has to thin defenses elsewhere to protect that new border. That makes NATO weaker, not stronger.
Where was it announced that the US is sending 10’s of thousands of troops to that border? I guess I don’t know what a significant military capability is to you. 50,000 modern day equipped troops isn’t insignificant.
Russia doesn't need a navy unless they want to occupy California. They didn't have one in ww2. Now, their trading partners are on their own borders as well.
Looking at lend lease it seems like we gave them an entire navy’s displacement worth of vessels. They certainly had many needs they could not meet on their own.
That's true. Now they have a hundred times the production capacity of artillery shells than we do. Safety and environmental laws really slow down production. Now they can trade directly with China their supply routes are much safer than ours. We have a navy cause we need a navy, they dont.
North Korea alone has a million men in active forces and can increase that many times larger while Finland and Sweden have a total of 50k soldiers. Finland and Sweden made NATO weaker, not stronger.
North Korea has enough conventional artillery within range to flatten Seoul in 12 hours. Most of it is underground and can't be stopped. If NATO attacks Russia, you may as well scratch Seoul off the map.
That’s assuming 1. They actually have this mythical number of guns 2. Kim wouldn’t immediately flip on Russia if shit pops off if it means even slight personal gain for himself
It's very well known that they do. I lived 10 years outside of Ft. SILL, and heard that many times, from arty guys that spent a lot of time on that boarder....
Then they surely gave the number of batteries? No large city has ever been leveled by artillery even with thousands of batteries firing at once. See Stalingrad, Leningrad, Berlin, any other city,
North Korea has 1 million starving midgets who are fed on one cup of rice a day.
You need navies and air forces to win wars, not just one million dudes with AK’s. How do you reason that adding more countries and manpower hurts NATO, that’s objectively 50k more troops than if they hadn’t added them.
Finland doubled the length of the border NATO has to defend now but didn't add any significant military capabilities. The USA has to send 10s of thousands troops to protect that border but the USA has limited resources and is falling short on hiring quotas so where are they getting those 10s of thousands troops? From other borders meaning it has to thin defenses elsewhere to protect that new border. That makes NATO weaker, not stronger.
Where was it announced that the US is sending 10’s of thousands of troops to that border? I guess I don’t know what a significant military capability is to you. 50,000 modern day equipped troops isn’t insignificant.
USA is building literally 15 new military bases in Finland now.
Russia doesn't need a navy unless they want to occupy California. They didn't have one in ww2. Now, their trading partners are on their own borders as well.
Looking at lend lease it seems like we gave them an entire navy’s displacement worth of vessels. They certainly had many needs they could not meet on their own.
That's true. Now they have a hundred times the production capacity of artillery shells than we do. Safety and environmental laws really slow down production. Now they can trade directly with China their supply routes are much safer than ours. We have a navy cause we need a navy, they dont.