Replies

Redmen4ever to Red6: "No, Ivan, I brought up nuclear aircraft carriers.
I said we had eleven of them plus a bunch of lesser aircraft carriers described as amphibious assault ships.
I said this to illustrate that our side is so much bigger, multiple times bigger than your side."

Russia's Cruiser Moskva,
converted to stationary submarine by Ukrainians:

To sharpen your point just a little:

Outside its submarine force, which is no joke, Russia does not have a serious navy.
Russia's one aircraft carrier spends nearly all of its time in docks being repaired.
Russia's Black Sea Fleet has now been largely converted into stationary submarines by Ukraine's navy yard workers.
By most countries definitions of "aircraft carriers", the US has 20:
- 1 - Ford (+2 more in construction)
- 10 - Nimetzes
- 2 - Americas (+3 more ordered/in construction)
- 7 - Wasps
In addition, virtually every US Navy surface ship carries some aircraft -- anything which can take off and land vertically, which includes:
- Helicopters on all ships, types depending on ship size (over 160 active ships).
- V-22 Osprey's on larger ships like San Antonios (12+4), Pullers (4+2) and even Harper's Ferrys (10).
- STOVL Harriers and Lightnings in emergencies only on smaller ships.
The real near-peer threat to the US Navy is not so much Russia as it is China, whose navy already outnumbers ours, is growing at a rate of roughly 30 ships per year, while the US struggles to add even 10 ships per year.
Yes, no doubt, US qualities outweigh some of China's quantities, but, as VI Lenin is alleged to have remarked, "quantity has a quality all its own".
Vlad the Invader is now testing Marx's theory in Ukraine as, doubtless, will China's Xi-snake in Taiwan, should Vlad prove successful.
Finally, some argue that what matters is not so much numbers of navy warships, but rather numbers of vertical launch system (VLS) cells.
Of those, the US and our allies have around 11,000 on 186 ships, while China has around 3,000 on 41 ships.

Next, on the question of GDP's, I think most people understand there are at least two different ways to calculate GDP, one called "nominal" the other "purchase price parity" (PPP).
Each is useful for certain types of analyses.
I think Purchase Price Parity (PPP) could be more useful for comparing potential military capabilities.
Using PPP then, here is how the world's major economies' GDPs line up in 2024:

$35 trillion -- China
+5 trillion -- Russia
+2 trillion -- Iran
+~sh*t -- NoKo
=$42 trillion for the new Axis of Evil Dictators

$29 trillion -- USA
+ 27 trillion -- European Union
+ 10 trillion -- Non-EU NATO allies
+ 17 trillion -- US Pacific allies
+20 trillion -- Friendly Indo-Pacific non-allies
= $103 trillion for US, US allies and Asian friendlies.

These numbers do not include relatively friendly countries to the US in Central & South America, Africa or the Middle East.

And if you look at population, the number of men reaching military age, industrial capacity, key high tech required for the military, the number of allies, what these allies can realistically bring to the table considering their own issues, you quickly realize that this idea of a Russian military monster poised to invade other nations after Ukraine (unless we stop them there) is junk.

The Russians are the underdog, not us. We are the ones doing the pushing, not the Russians. But that doesn’t stop us from using Cold War era cliches and threat pictures.

Please decide what it’s going to be!

—Are the Russians this huge threat.

—Or are they in reality weak in conventional terms.

But don’t play it both ways like many here do, pretending Russia is a huge threat, but then not, however it fits into their argument at the moment.