Excellent article Fred,

I had to study Soviet weaponry when in the military and assigned to Europe in 1970s. The Soviets were ingenious in turning out low cost weaponry that worked and continued working in hostile backfield conditions. God is in the details. Example: The Soviets could change treads on a tank in the field in 30 minutes. American tanks had to be returned to a rear depot for that purpose. Example: The AK-47 and its variants compared to the M-16 and its variants. I could go on and on. The Russians have continued the Soviet tradition.

A key difference is that Russian weapons are designed by the military and then assigned to bureaus for production. American weapons are designed by corporations with an eye on maximizing profits. They tend to be overly complex; complexity drives costs. Typically, lobbyists are employed by the corporations to then force the military to buy and use them regardless of their military utility. Example: the F-35 ... and with that example no more need be said.

Not so long ago I ran across an Internet short by a military analyst that claimed that in NATO exercises, the Russians always tend to win. [?] Part of this is the Russian doctrine of war compared to the Western doctrine of war: concentration and terrifying violence at the point of penetration and victory ... rather than the NATO preference of reinforcing sectors where NATO is losing ground, which is a formula for defeat. The point is that the Russians understand war and its consequences. The perfumed dilettantes in Washington do not.

There is another recent and disturbing trend in US/Western way of war ... and that is the assumption that only special forces (a small percentage of the total force) need to be ready and physically and psychologically primed for battle. The rest can can overweight women, beta males, and the LGBTxyz crowd.

Russia also has a doctrine of being prepared to use a nuke on an enemy (NATO?) to force it to its senses. This creates the dilemma in NATO of responding in kind or stopping the insanity. If the decision is made to respond in kind, the Russians also have the advantage in nuclear weapons. Their nuclear forces have been systematically upgraded and are kept in a state of readiness. The United States has been derelict on both of these counts. But if one side or the other goes nuclear, no one can win, which is the sense behind the Russian doctrine of the nuclear demonstration to bring an opponent to his senses.

I ponder at times whether the contingency plans on both sides are labelled "Operation GLASS" as a reflection on what would be left behind after a nuclear exchange. That said, Hillary's hand on the red button? ... a fourth grade of insanity.

Replies: @Orville H. Larson, @Hippopotamusdrome, @Kay Gibi

Replies: @Kay Gibi