War in Ukraine

#78,502
#78,502
hog88 said:
This is almost the dumbest post in this entire thread.
Click to expand...
Ending it in ukraine would likely be less costly in American lives than if the war spreads and we have fewer allies to fight them with.

I guess the right in this country wants to fight "armageddon" with iran instead. Even though our current military seems better suited to that fight in terms training, experience, and technology, it seems like a trap to me.
 
#78,504
#78,504
jvol1 said:
Ending it in ukraine would likely be less costly in American lives than if the war spreads and we have fewer allies to fight them with.

I guess the right in this country wants to fight "armageddon" with iran instead. Even though our current military seems better suited to that fight in terms training, experience, and technology, it seems like a trap to me.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with America? (Well, other than the CIA went in there and than sent weapons) Exactly when did all of us sign up for this? Why do I care?

If you feel like its important than you can sign up. Join the Brave

Those are the uniparty neocons with Iran, same as the Ukrainian stupid war... the uniparty already knows that is lost.

we have fewer allies to fight them with
Click to expand...

The U.S. really doesn't have allies, it has fewer and fewer countries that are going to put up with the blocking of the federal reserve system (sanctions). The Ukraine is toast and Europe is probably screwed.

F the EU. (United States new foreign policy)
 
Last edited:
#78,505
#78,505
jvol1 said:
Ending it in ukraine would likely be less costly in American lives than if the war spreads and we have fewer allies to fight them with.

I guess the right in this country wants to fight "armageddon" with iran instead. Even though our current military seems better suited to that fight in terms training, experience, and technology, it seems like a trap to me.
Click to expand...

When are you signing up?
 
#78,506
#78,506
jvol1 said:
Ending it in ukraine would likely be less costly in American lives than if the war spreads and we have fewer allies to fight them with.

I guess the right in this country wants to fight "armageddon" with iran instead. Even though our current military seems better suited to that fight in terms training, experience, and technology, it seems like a trap to me.
Click to expand...
There's zero indication it would spread. This needles fear mongering simply to get a desired result needs to stop
 
#78,507
#78,507
LSU-SIU said:
Yup. Those were USSR weapons that came from Russia and were stationed in the Ukraine. Which is why the Ukraine is asking for nuclear weapons now. Of course, the United States nor Europe wanted the Ukraine to have them either. They had a large nuclear weapon supply that nobody wanted them to have, for obvious reasons. Of course, possession is ownership to a degree but regardless, it was just a return of what really never was theirs and an agreement was made.

Turkey doesn't have nuclear weapons but the United States stations their nuclear weapons there. Kind of crazy to think the U.S. stations nuclear weapons there but that is a whole other story.

Either way, not sure why that cat is so fixated on who owned them, that was 30 years ago.
Click to expand...
if you are going to be obtuse, then at least be obtuse correctly.

depending on when those nukes were made there is a decent chance they didn't get them from Russia itself. most of the uranium/plutonium mining, processing, testing, and building all happened in various stans. At various points there were Russian nukes being made in Russia, but the majority came from one of the various 'stans. the science was somewhat "Russian" as it took place in Russia, but very few Russians took part.

early Soviet nuclear tech was indeed Ukrainian, Ukrainian Institute for Physics and Technology in Kharkov being chief amongst them. even the closed town where they developed their nukes IN Russia was staffed by mostly non-Russians, including the same Ukrainians plus many of the nazi's scientists.

the first Uranium mines in the USSR, Tajikistan. the first large scale processing of uranium Tajikistan. The first nuclear test, Kazakhstan. the first warhead built, Tajikistan. air dropped bomb Kazakhstan. the first missile to have a warhead attached, R-5 Ukrainian. The first mobile ICBM, Ukrainian. The missiles going to Cuba, Ukrainian. Hydrogen bomb, Kazakhstan, Tsar bomb built in Kazakhstan tested in northern Russian. after the mid to late 60s most of the assembling of the bombs or missile warheads did take place in Russia, but the rest of it was not in Russia. There is a reason the Russian space program still launches out of Kazakhstan today.
 
#78,508
#78,508
LouderVol said:
if you are going to be obtuse, then at least be obtuse correctly.

depending on when those nukes were made there is a decent chance they didn't get them from Russia itself. most of the uranium/plutonium mining, processing, testing, and building all happened in various stans. At various points there were Russian nukes being made in Russia, but the majority came from one of the various 'stans. the science was somewhat "Russian" as it took place in Russia, but very few Russians took part.

early Soviet nuclear tech was indeed Ukrainian, Ukrainian Institute for Physics and Technology in Kharkov being chief amongst them. even the closed town where they developed their nukes IN Russia was staffed by mostly non-Russians, including the same Ukrainians plus many of the nazi's scientists.

the first Uranium mines in the USSR, Tajikistan. the first large scale processing of uranium Tajikistan. The first nuclear test, Kazakhstan. the first warhead built, Tajikistan. air dropped bomb Kazakhstan. the first missile to have a warhead attached, R-5 Ukrainian. The first mobile ICBM, Ukrainian. The missiles going to Cuba, Ukrainian. Hydrogen bomb, Kazakhstan, Tsar bomb built in Kazakhstan tested in northern Russian. after the mid to late 60s most of the assembling of the bombs or missile warheads did take place in Russia, but the rest of it was not in Russia. There is a reason the Russian space program still launches out of Kazakhstan today.
Click to expand...

If those were Ukrainian weapons why did they give them to Russia just as everyone including the United States wanted? Regardless, that was 30+ years ago. So what? Exactly how many nuclear weapons have they produced since that time? How many has Russia developed? Why is the Ukraine obtaining weapons from Russia and the United States if they have all this ability? They don't. But at the end of the day.... so what?

If the point is, don't give up your nuclear weapons. On that I agree, especially if the United States is involved.
 
#78,509
#78,509
Question

Show of hands of those who either approve deployment of US troops OR the loss of Ukraine?
 
#78,510
#78,510
Orangeburst said:
Question

Show of hands of those who either approve deployment of US troops OR the loss of Ukraine?
Click to expand...

The United States could send troops and my take is the Ukraine isn't going to make it in its present form. Sending more meat might change the time table, but all the problems still exist.

What's the objective here?
 
#78,511
#78,511
GM9QSi1W8AA8XWk
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
#78,513
#78,513
LSU-SIU said:
The United States could send troops and my take is the Ukraine isn't going to make it in its present form.
Click to expand...
I am curious to see how invested everyone is. Our leadership seems to think we have to have WW3 to prevent WW3.

another take discussed earlier..I think even if NATO nation troops are unilaterally deployed it will eventually involve the US. Article 2 isnt the only war trigerring mechanism. No way DC sits back while bombs drop on Paris or Russia attacks the Polish border, regardless of some understanding that their active participation is unilateral.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU
#78,514
#78,514
NorthDallas40 said:
I’m against sending US military personnel in any OR scenario. If it ratchets up that high that burden falls on Europe before any other western powers.
Click to expand...
You have repeatedly stated that, but curious of others. Genie is to far out of the bottle though if any or several NATO nations are at war..imo
 
#78,515
#78,515
BeardedVol said:


bye.gif
Click to expand...

my understanding is that the Russians posted the picture with the German cross. then the "fact checkers" went and found the second photo.

they are two different vehicles. battle damage in each is inconsistent. rust/patina is different. I doubt only one of those vehicles exist. one could have the german cross, because those are clearly two different vehicles in each photo.

I don't think those two photos debunk anything.
 
#78,516
#78,516
Orangeburst said:
I am curious to see how invested everyone is. Our leadership seems to think we have to have WW3 to prevent WW3.

another take discussed earlier..I think even if NATO nation troops are unilaterally deployed it will eventually involve the US. Article 2 isnt the only war trigerring mechanism. No way DC sits back while bombs drop on Paris or Russia attacks the Polish border, regardless of some understanding that their active participation is unilateral.
Click to expand...
The combined militaries of Europe would drag Russia. They can’t handle Ukraine right now. There is no way they can tackle a combined Europe. And regardless what the US does if Russia attacks any European country within their sovereign borders, not some forward deployed group, all of Europe would amass and crush them.
 
#78,517
#78,517
Orangeburst said:
I am curious to see how invested everyone is. Our leadership seems to think we have to have WW3 to prevent WW3.

another take discussed earlier..I think even if NATO nation troops are unilaterally deployed it will eventually involve the US. Article 2 isnt the only war trigerring mechanism. No way DC sits back while bombs drop on Paris or Russia attacks the Polish border, regardless of some understanding that their active participation is unilateral.
Click to expand...

According to the narrative, Russia is not capable of defeating the Ukraine. So, why even get to Poland or the rest Europe? The issue to me is all the lies, and silly PR and narratives. The PR started eating itself about 9 months ago when the FABs started dropping. We don't have leadership, we have neocons which never have to face their own evil doings. (rinse and repeat) Right now its about getting to the election.

What's the objective with any of this? What's the objective of sending troops? Etc. These will never truly be answered, neocons don't give answers.

The battlefield has been set for some time, unless there is some major change to the battle field in the form of tactics or strategy than its hard to envision how the outcome changes. I suspect a nuke, or dirty bomb, or hitting the nuclear power plants or similar if things really fall apart before the election.

Sending U.S. troops in really doesn't change the outcome if this continues without something else added to the mix.... that's just more meat.

Its simple, the Russians can produce more ordinances than the West can in total, they are able to put those ordinances down more precisely in the way this war has unfolded. How does any of that change?
 
Last edited:
#78,518
#78,518
NorthDallas40 said:
The combined militaries of Europe would drag Russia. They can’t handle Ukraine right now. There is no way they can tackle a combined Europe. And regardless what the US does if Russia attacks any European country within their sovereign borders, not some forward deployed group, all of Europe would amass and crush them.
Click to expand...
Good point..but how far out in that scenario would tactical nukes be considered.
 
#78,519
#78,519
jvol1 said:
It still seems like the easiest and best way to win is for the us to commit troops. We've positioned ourselves both as a super power and a global champion of democracy, so it diminishes our standing globally by not getting directly involved. It makes sense tactically as well because the battle lines in ukraine are clear and relatively small. If ukraine falls to russia -- and when a country falls to russia it's a brutal rapey, genocidal affair -- it's got to make other border countries less sure of their loyalties, whether it might not be less costly in terms if capital and men to join the russians. Worse if trump follows through on his promise to extort nato countries for protection, that could make surrender even more likely. Theres no way out of this without losing american lives. Russias bringing the war to us. Better to try to nip it, than shirk our duty as the global defender of democracy.
Click to expand...
russia isn't going to do crap to the US or NATO. this war proves it.

Ukraine, isn't part of NATO, has no way to join NATO, and previously got rejected by NATO, gets invaded.
Finland crosses Putin's red line of joining NATO, isn't invaded. Putin doesn't even say squat.

stop with the warmongering. there are plenty of ways out without losing American lives. the US or NATO getting directly involved turns this into a nuclear war. this war is clearly not going to be a nuclear war otherwise.

the worst part is your rhetoric is feeding Putin's own disinformation campaign, and you are too oblivious to realize it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PKT_VOL
#78,522
#78,522
Rasputin_Vol said:
Are the North Koreans a near peer? you mean the Chinese?
Are the North Vietnamese a near peer? You mean the Chinese and the Russians?
Are the Taliban a near peer? you mean the CIA?
Are the Syrians a near peer? for what, the 200 or so special forces we have over there? and you mean the Russians?
Are the Houthis a near peer? you mean the Iranians? and for like 4 ships?
Click to expand...
it always amuses me how one sided you are with EVERYTHING.

you understand the concept of a proxy war, but refuse to see how others use it. The Chinese in Korea, the Chinese and the Russians in Vietnam. etc etc etc.
 
#78,524
#78,524
tvolsfan said:
He's pretty clearly saying we should support Ukraine so we don't find ourselves dragged into conflict in the future.
Click to expand...
how does throwing in more support mean we are less likely to be dragged into the conflict in the future?

common sense would say the MORE we support them the MORE we are likely to be drawn in to the conflict. in for a penny in for a pound.

especially if Russia makes good on their threats to the brits. saying they are going to attack britain for Ukraine using British weapons to strike into Russia. that just means that more support is going to lead to direct violence.
 
#78,525
#78,525
LSU-SIU said:
If those were Ukrainian weapons why did they give them to Russia just as everyone including the United States wanted? Regardless, that was 30+ years ago. So what? Exactly how many nuclear weapons have they produced since that time? How many has Russia developed? Why is the Ukraine obtaining weapons from Russia and the United States if they have all this ability? They don't. But at the end of the day.... so what?

If the point is, don't give up your nuclear weapons. On that I agree, especially if the United States is involved.
Click to expand...
it was a gun buy back program for WMDs. just like most buy back programs it failed its stated goal.

in your world, the Ukrainians sold the Russians Russian weapons and received massive economic benefits, as well as an agreement their borders wouldn't be violated (from either side) and thus would receive support from whoever the "other" was that didn't attack them. kinda freaking brilliant for the Ukrainians, and dumb for the Russians to buy something that was already theirs.

I don't think Russia, Ukraine, or the US has developed any new nukes. the US and Russia have updated the platforms that carry them, but they are all still the same. which just goes back to my point of them not being Russian-only nukes, which you are still avoiding.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top