War in Ukraine

#45,002
#45,002
Velo Vol said:
I must have missed what businesses in Berlin, Paris, etc. have been demanding an economic war with Russia the last several years.
Click to expand...

The business of government. Come on man, of course that is being directed by DC. Germany was just fine pretending they were some how sovereign and able to take care of themselves.
 
#45,009
#45,009
IluvdoubleD's said:
When you add it to the 13.5, it would be 25 b of the pledged 40 billion.
Click to expand...
Actually no. From the article

The inclusion of the funding comes after President Biden requested $13.7 billion for Ukraine earlier this month. If the Senate bill passes, this latest tranche will bring the total funding for Ukraine approved by Congress up to approximately $65 billion
 
#45,010
#45,010
LSU-SIU said:
Combine all of the annual military budgets of NATO vs Russia... probably in the $1.4t vs $60b range. There is only one way that works, and its not to use all of your budget to buy modern tanks.
Click to expand...

If you are saying that Russia just has to throw troops at it because they don't have the technology because of their spending and oligarchs sponging off of their budget to a great degree, then we agree.
 
#45,011
#45,011
norrislakevol said:
If you are saying that Russia just has to throw troops at it because they don't have the technology because of their spending and oligarchs sponging off of their budget to a great degree, then we agree.
Click to expand...

Oh they have technology, you just aren't going to want to be on the other end of the technology. Its the only way.
 
#45,015
#45,015
Hungary PM Orban says EU sanctions on Russia have "backfired"
Orban said his government had revised its long-term energy strategy and aims to overhaul the power system and extend the lifespan of the Paks nuclear power plant, with a total of 32 big investments planned to be financed using EU funding.


Hmmm....
 
#45,019
#45,019
Electric Orange said:
Hungary PM Orban says EU sanctions on Russia have "backfired"
Orban said his government had revised its long-term energy strategy and aims to overhaul the power system and extend the lifespan of the Paks nuclear power plant, with a total of 32 big investments planned to be financed using EU funding.


Hmmm....
Click to expand...

Yep Europe dug their own graves years before this war even started. "Hey let's shut down our coal and nuclear power plants and buy energy from Russia to appease the leftists crazies!" Then: "Russia bad! Don't buy shiz from them! Oh....wait..."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 825VOL
#45,020
#45,020
norrislakevol said:
Yep Europe dig their own graves years before this war even started. "Hey let's shut down our coal and nuclear power plants and buy energy from Russia to appease the leftists crazies!" Then: "Russia bad! Don't buy shiz from them! Oh....wait..."
Click to expand...
Yeah but anyone not liking that plan is a "fascist"

Can't you just be as successfully green as Germany?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
#45,023
#45,023
norrislakevol said:
I assume you are talking about the 1945 technology that is nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Slightly more complicated than that. Tactical capabilities are kind of endless to a degree let alone new delivery systems like hypersonic. They can create smaller blasts with minimum radiation so troops can actually deploy after blasts, or things like almost no blast with high radiation to kill people underground or in fortified positions. There is no real definition for tactical nuclear weapons, usually it has to do with range i.e. ICBM. These could be scaled for example I believe the artillery shells range from < 1kt to 2kt, so we're talking a fraction of Hiroshima. Its the diversity of the types of tactical weapons they have with the deployment systems (air, ground, sea) plus the new hyper sonic technology.

840f1468-17cc-446e-a75f-7d9fa0d7e12b_text.gif


Lots of people have Hiroshima or WW3 type imagery in their heads of nuclear weapons, but that's really not the case with low yield ones. Its actually the ability to deliver it anywhere and lower the yield (scale) that would make it impossible to deal with on the battlefield.
 
#45,024
#45,024
LSU-SIU said:
Slightly more complicated than that. Tactical capabilities are kind of endless to a degree let alone new delivery systems like hypersonic. They can create smaller blasts with minimum radiation so troops can actually deploy after blasts, or things like almost no blast with high radiation to kill people underground or in fortified positions. There is no real definition for tactical nuclear weapons, usually it has to do with range i.e. ICBM. These could be scaled for example I believe the artillery shells range from < 1kt to 2kt, so we're talking a fraction of Hiroshima. Its the diversity of the types of tactical weapons they have with the deployment systems (air, ground, sea) plus the new hyper sonic technology.

840f1468-17cc-446e-a75f-7d9fa0d7e12b_text.gif


Lots of people have Hiroshima or WW3 type imagery in their heads of nuclear weapons, but that's really not the case with low yield ones. Its actually the ability to deliver it anywhere and lower the yield (scale) that would make it impossible to deal with on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't shock me if they got desperate and tried out some tactical nukes, but that would be very risky....very. Hyper sonic weapons are not really a factor her I don't think. They wouldn't really have enough to make a difference. No one does at this point.

At the end of the day the biggest majority of their weapons are inferior.
 
#45,025
#45,025
norrislakevol said:
Wouldn't shock me if they got desperate and tried out some tactical nukes, but that would be very risky....very. Hyper sonic weapons are not really a factor her I don't think. They wouldn't really have enough to make a difference. No one does at this point.
Click to expand...

They are not going to let masses across the border, that has been the strategy since the early 90s. That is their defense i.e. tactical nuclear.

Hypersonic is just the delivery system of the weapon, meaning there is no defense for that delivery.

At the end of the day the biggest majority of their weapons are inferior.
Click to expand...

Of course, which is why the invested heavily in nuclear and especially the tactical variety since the 90s. They don't have $1.4t to spend every year such as nato, matter of fact, that's more > the Russians have probably spend in total on the their military since the time the USSR collapsed. LoL

Tactical nuclear is the only way to go.

Watch: Moment Russia fires hypersonic missile at ammunition depot in Ukraine

Hypersonic is just the delivery system i.e. 7-12 times the speed of sound, basically no ability to shoot them down.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top