Quote:
Originally Posted by R Flair
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I refuse to believe that our country is not more prepared for a nuclear defense. Our military infrastructure is hardened and I personally think we have surveillance and technology that is still beyond what Russia or anyone else has. Chances are, if Russia decided to take military action, we'd know within seconds. Shit we have a plane orbiting the planet and no one even knows what it's for.
Things have certainly been cut back, and if for no other reason, we should always be cutting edge for appearance purposes, but chances are if we haven't been doing these things visibly, it's because our military is confident in what we have that people like us, quite possibly, have no knowledge of.
|
High-tech vs low-tech. But then Russia has been updating, which we have hardly done. You'd need to ask Hillary where they got all the new toys from, she's still counting her Clinton Foundation funding donations from it.
Do you know the difference between a modern nuclear attack submarine vs a diesel electric attack submarine? I mean in relation to advantage against a surface target. Which has the clear advantage?
What is the difference between our/NATO cruise missile tech compared to theirs? That's another Hitllary answer btw.
Thing is, 0bama and HRC gave them a whole mess of tech while HRC was working for 0bama. They literally built them a Silicon Valley, and it's been operational for some time now. Even their ICBM's have been greatly improved for accuracy. Serious, it was a total sell out. I mean prolly to the point that if we had secret tech, they have it now too, and built.
But you are saying attack, I'm not looking at attack but defend, which in itself is a very costly and risky tactic.