this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2025
131 points (95.8% liked)
World News
38761 readers
459 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Are you serious or joking?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures
NATO outpower russia 10-1, they would easily win a war against them which is why they are seeking one.
Trashcan for usa military - 10000$
Trashcan for russia military - 10$ maybe?
Therefore we can conclude that russia has ~100x the military production of usa.
NATO doesn't arm its soldiers with trashcans though
We can assume their weapons will have similar markup, maybe even more.
Don't assume and look at the evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures
Can you please explain how a list of countries with the highest military expenditures is evidence that weapons used by the US aren't bought/produced for a ridiculous markup?
Like, the claim m352 is making is "the american military spends unreasonable amounts of money on weapons for no benefit, because of how much graft and how many middlepeople exist in the american weapon supply chain".
And the evidence you use to counter this claim is "the US spends much, much more money on weapons than Russia". And like, yeah, no kidding the US spends much more on its military than Russia does, but I don't see how that has anything to do with m352's claim.
So can you please draw the connection for me? How does your response here address the comment you're responding to?
Again just look at the evidence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_B-2_Spirit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_States_Navy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_the_United_States_Navy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XKeyscore
These are just some random USA war assets, in case you fail to understand what spending a trillion dollars a year in war gets you.
I still don't understand what evidence you're finding on these Wikipedia pages. Like, ok, I read the Wikipedia page for the F-22. What am I supposed to get out of my reading? What should I have learned from that page?
Can you please actually draw the connection you're making, explicitly? Because I legitimately do not understand what you're trying to say
You are replying to a series of comments about NATO not being able to field an actual war against Russia.
if NATO decides to field a war against russia with the war assets they spend trillions on such as hundreds of f22, almost a thousand f35, a hundred nuclear submarines and all the shit they have like the most advanced cyberwarfare weapons in the world, how does russia respond?
So all these Wikipedia articles are evidence for the claim "NATO would trounce Russia if they were actually trying"? And the evidence I'm supposed to be getting from these articles is "look at all these extremely expensive war planes, clearly they're better than their Russian counterparts, they're more expensive".
Is that a fair characterization of your point?
You didn't answer the question, go ahead and bring up the 10x cheaper russian assets that can match fleets of f22 and f35
You want me to answer the question that is your last paragraph?
I have no idea! I don't live in Russia, I'm not well-versed in modern warfare and military technology, I haven't studied diplomacy, I have no idea how Russia would respond if nato suddenly brings to bear every piece of military hardware it can muster.
Literally all I'm saying is that more expensive doesn't always mean better quality. That's literally it
You are right, more expensive doesn't always mean better quality or more products that's why I am referring to assets made with these money that show that in this case spending 10x more than everyone else is resulting in a bigger and more advanced army
This is the part I think you haven't shown, even a little bit. First you linked a wikipedia page which was a list of countries with the highest military expenditures, then you linked wikipedia pages for a bunch of american military hardware. At no point did you try to compare american military hardware with Russian military hardware, either in quantity or quality. The only comparison you've made is in terms of expense.
It's not that hard you can compare it yourself, google how many military assets russia have. USA spend a trillion in war each year and as a result they have almost a thousand operative fifth generation planes (for comparison russia has less than 25). USA has about 70 nuclear submarines where russia has 20
Now we're finally getting to a real argument! Now you're arguing that the US is better prepared for war than Russia is, not just that the US spends more money on war than Russia does.
I do notice, however, that you have linked not a single article or source for the claims in these comments. Where are your numbers coming from?
You might be right that the US is more prepared for war than Russia is. I'm not convinced, and also I think m532 has a good point that nukes (which both the us and Russia have) change everything, but you could still be right.
I'm actually not that interested in whether the claim "america would easily beat Russia if they actually tried" is true. My entire reason for engaging was simply to point out that "the US spends more on war and hence is necessarily better prepared for war" is not a good argument; the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
If you want to convince people on the internet, you should practice making better arguments, and sourcing them properly. Your argumentation in this thread has been abysmal and I wanted to help you see that and make improvements
From the wikipedia pages you didn't even open
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_B-2_Spirit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_United_States_Navy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_submarines_of_the_United_States_Navy
Well I did read the F-22 page, as I said before. You're right that I didn't read the rest of them because at that point in the conversation I was extremely confused as to why you'd linked them in the first place.
I see that the US built a total of 195 F-22's. That number isn't any of the ones you listed in your one comment that had some numbers.
To be charitable to you, I might be able to find the 1000 warplanes and 70 nuclear sub numbers somewhere in the wikipedia pages you linked. I'm not going to read them, I'm really not into military hardware, but if you tell me that's where you got the numbers, I'll go ahead and believe you. It would be better practice, though, to quote a passage that includes the relevant figures, then link to the place you're quoting from.
Now what about the numbers for Russian warplanes and Russian nuclear subs? What are your sources for those figures? They surely aren't found in a wikipedia article about the american military
In the wikipedia article about the russian military
Which you haven't linked.
If I go to wikipedia and search "Russian military" will I find an article with those numbers?
Why can't you quote the relevant sections, then link to what you're quoting from? That's how sources in an argument are supposed to work.
Russia has hypersonic nukes, usa doesn't. It doesn't matter how much you spend, if you get hypersonic nuked you are dead.
The US lost to Yemen.
Artillery, antiair, icbms, nukes, drones, submarines
They could just carpet nuke usa 10x over. There is no winning against a nuclear power.
NATO outspends Russia 10-1. That doesn't translate to actual firepower or sustained war capacity. Russian production is much cheaper for comparable quality.
If the same thing is 10 times cheaper i would argue that the quality is not comparable. USA alone outpower any other country in war capacity and assets, if you add the the rest of NATO countries it sound like a joke to claim russia could match them.
Russia produces 4x the amount of artillery shells as all of NATO. SU 35 is half the cost of F35, with better flight availability. Missile technology of Russia is far (at least 5 years) ahead of US. Drone technology is Russia, China, Ukraine only capable. Nuclear powered torpedo is undetected annihilation of any carrier fleet or port in the world. US military spending is just corruption for political cronies. Incompetent pursuit of higher tech they are incapable of implementing, but get paid for anyway.
Whatever USA is producing is 4x times more advanced than that.
Assuming we take for granted that a fourth generation plane is better than F35s, keep in mind that USA alone has more than 500 of these and hundreds of F22
Russia technology is overall 10 years behind of US
USA started using military drones more than 20 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdix_(drone)
I'm sure there's plenty of corruption and any cent spent on military and war is useless. by not acknowledging USA war assets i think you are downplaying how trillions of public money are being wasted.
X Doubt
and behind everything else that is relevant in 2025
They are giving ukraine crap the same way russia is using crap to fight this war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures
Um... the Iran-pissrael war (2025)... was fought majorly with missiles...
But if you think missiles are useless in 2025, that's okay. Please convince the us military of that.
They're artillery shells.
Way ahead in missiles. Hypersonics the US has failed at. new 14000km 15 hour range nuclear cruise missile. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/russia-tested-new-nuclear-powered-cruise-missile-top-general-says-2025-10-26/
US still has crap that Ukraine has no use for. New generations test poorly.
You're confusing the monetary price with actual, qualitative results. The same widget costs more money to produce in the US than it would in Russia, Russia has lower labor costs and higher industrialization. There's also effectiveness, drones are cheap and can often achieve the same or better results than traditional ballistic missiles that cost more. The fact that the west spends a lot is due to the millitary industrial complex. To equate capital investment across different economies is an error, you can find the same medicine in the US for hundreds of times the price as you can in Canada, as an alternative example.
Why do you think it cost 10 times more to produce it in the USA? How many american and european engineers do you know that works in russia for 10x cheaper salary?
Assuming what you say is true should we move to compare war assets? What's the russian counterpart to hundreds of F22 and the b2?
USA has been using military drones for more than two decades
You are messing up things. That's the price the consumer pays for medicines because of a monopoly
Cost of living is higher in the US, ergo wages are higher, ergo production costs more. This is true across all fields, plus the lack of industrialization means it's more difficult to manufacture. Why are all of your goods made in China, Vietnam, etc?
Privatized industry also costs a lot more, especially the millitary industrial complex. I'm aware that the US has drones, I'm also aware that the drones of today are entirely different and far cheaper to produce.
Technological and industrial level is also higher in the US, expect a military widget manufactured there to be more advanced than one manufactured in a country where production is 10x cheaper.
USA and europe do not lack industrialization.
Why are they not made in russia? They are made in china because it's cheaper for western companies to produce there and because they can get away with such exploitation. Your goods aren't military assets.
Industrial level is lower in the US. Cost of living is inflated because it's an imperialist country, and siphons vast sums of wealth to the imperial core. The US and Europe have hollowed out their productive capacity and shifted it all overseas. Goods are made in China for cheaper because industrialization is higher, as is productive capacity. Russia is heavily sanctioned, and largely produces for itself.
Spending 10 times as much does not mean you are getting 10 times as much out of it.
We are comparing NATO to russia. I'm talking about US because alone it overpower russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing#List_of_countries_by_manufacturing_output
Keep in mind that while chinese industry produces a lot it is not necessarily the most advanced.
Chinese industry is some of the most advanced on the planet. I use US as an example, because industrial output is lower. Your list is measured in terms of dollars, not actual goods and output.
Yes next to america and europe. Your original claim i'm reply to is that "NATO can’t field an actual war against Russia".
If you want we can compare NATO and russia/china combined and see who has the strongest army and biggest war capabilities.
No, not "next to," at this point China has surpassed the US and Europe in manufacturing in all but a few specialized fields.
Secondly, saying that NATO can't field war against Russia doesn't mean that NATO can't try, or that Russia would single-handedly destroy all of NATO. Russia would win like Vietnam won against the US, by NATO failing to accomplish their goals without nuclear war.
If it was China and Russia against NATO, it would similarly be devastating for all involved, but NATO wouldn't succeed in crushing Russia and China without nuclear war.
few specialized fields like war tech and industry which is what we are talking about.
Vietnam war was 60 years ago and nukes are older than that. War has evolved, USA wouldn't need a single nuke to destroy russia they are already doing it with propaganda and the leverage they have on markets.
No, China is surpassing the US in industrial output and tech. China's 6th gen fighters are further along than the US's F-47, and China has far more industrial capacity. The tech is close enough that it won't make more than a marginal difference, but the industrial output absolutely will.
The US is not destroying Russia, sanctions have just pushed Russia closer to BRICS. The largest social instability, I would say, is an increasing desire to return to socialism among the populace.
How many of these china has? Speculated further development of fighters that aren't operative yet is a better metric to compare war power than US outclassing any other country in military spending for decades?
USA pretty much defeated russia in the cold war and they are slowly finishing them as you can see today.
Information on quantities is minimal, but from what we know China is further along and these fighters have been spotted. Spending in China goes a lot farther thsn it does in the US.
The USSR dissolved, yes, that doesn't mean the US is destroying the Russian Federation.
USA has plenty of classified weapons we are not talking about. We are comparing assets we know of that already exists and that can be used to wage war today.
Sure, so from what we do know China is ahead of the US in productive capacity and relatively equal in tech, slightly behind in some areas and ahead in others.
Wunderwaffen made by silicon valley startups, i guess. About as useful and money-efficient as a 10000$ trash can.
Do you know about that thing called capitalism, where the engineers' wages get stolen by the bourgies?
Expenditure does not measure real power. The US lost to Yemen, which has a 630× smaller GDP, so its military expenditure is certainly hundreds of times less than the US.