3 ms·
> Basically Western militaries have never invested heavily in SAMs, but invested heavily in anti-SAM weapons an tactics; while Soviet-style militaries did the o
by js8 5y ago
> Basically Western militaries have never invested heavily in SAMs, but invested heavily in anti-SAM weapons an tactics; while Soviet-style militaries did the opposite
Hm, I will cynically say that it looks like the Russians were actually more interested in defense, while the Americans were more interested in offense.
- mulmen 5y agoThat’s a thing that you can say. But I would be careful not to conflate military doctrine with geopolitical policy.
- js8 5y agoI certainly wish that, at least in the American case, they are different. There is however evidence to the contrary. My country was invaded by Russians in 1968. While it wasn't particularly pleasant, I think it was better than being bombed, or perhaps even, economically starved.
- mulmen 5y agoOf course they are different. But if you are going to battle strike early and strike hard.
- KptMarchewa 5y agoYou can see opposite tendencies looking at the ground forces.
- js8 5y agoOK, fair enough. There might be several reasons why is air offensive more important for Americans than Russians and vice versa: 1. Russians won the WW2 using tanks on land, Americans won the WW2 using aircrafts over sea. 2. (If we assume Russians care less about the loss of their troops than Americans.) Attacking another country from the air is more expensive, but safer, than attacking it from the ground. 3. (If we assume Americans are more interested in projecting their force globally than Russians are.) It is easier to move airplanes/missiles/drones around the world on ships than to move heavy mechanized ground troops. On the other hand, Russians have sometimes led the development of heavy ICBMs and nuclear weapons, but that also seems to be more valuable as a global deterrent rather than something you would randomly use during an invasion.