War in Ukraine

#62,801
#62,801
So… Does a Russian stooge try to sabotage Finland’s NATO memberships by starting an anti-Turkey/Erdogan/Islam protest in Helsinki?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#62,804
#62,804
  • Like
Reactions: tbh, InVOLuntary, StarRaider and 2 others
#62,805
#62,805
NorthDallas40 said:
Well they don’t understand the actual risks of depleted uranium and won’t reconcile their own use of those same rounds so this escalation stupidity is just par for the course with these idiots
Click to expand...

Russia (when they were "Soviets") didn't seem to have a problem saddling Ukraine with Chernobyl. And they definitely didn't have any thoughts about irresponsibly tracking through contaminated areas around Chernobyl, or damaging or destroying nuclear power plants in Ukraine after the invasion last year. Depleted uranium might not be the best thing for your health, but spreading irradiated fuel and contaminants is a whole different matter ... about as environmentally friendly as detonating a dirty bomb. Apparently if the Russians contaminate Ukrainian soil it's not a problem, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volsdeep4 and NorthDallas40
#62,807
#62,807
Orangeburst said:
Going to war? Good news! The United States is 13 years behind in ammunition production, NYT reports
Click to expand...

I'd bet there's a whole lot behind those numbers - far more than just Ukraine. Some ammunition you'd suppose had been in use and will be in use for some time - like the 155mm rounds, but they didn't address what happens when the military moves from one weapon or system to another - obsolescence and future need; think when the the M14 and 7.62 ammunition gave way to the M16 and 5.56, and the 1911 with .45 ammo changed to a Beretta and 9mm ammo. That doesn't even touch on things like the changes in air to air and ground fired missiles. The article also didn't cover the drawdowns due to things like Iraq and Afghanistan, and it didn't talk about dem administrations and defense cuts or sequestration. The number is somewhat meaningless unless shelf life, obsolescence, and budget constraints are considered ... not to mention what we probably lost in Afghanistan while leaving. I don't think the NYT is going to go into historical detail about stuff the dems had a big hand in screwing up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbh and Orangeburst
#62,809
#62,809
AM64 said:
I'd bet there's a whole lot behind those numbers - far more than just Ukraine. Some ammunition you'd suppose had been in use and will be in use for some time - like the 155mm rounds, but they didn't address what happens when the military moves from one weapon or system to another - obsolescence and future need; think when the the M14 and 7.62 ammunition gave way to the M16 and 5.56, and the 1911 with .45 ammo changed to a Beretta and 9mm ammo. That doesn't even touch on things like the changes in air to air and ground fired missiles. The article also didn't cover the drawdowns due to things like Iraq and Afghanistan, and it didn't talk about dem administrations and defense cuts or sequestration. The number is somewhat meaningless unless shelf life, obsolescence, and budget constraints are considered ... not to mention what we probably lost in Afghanistan while leaving. I don't think the NYT is going to go into historical detail about stuff the dems had a big hand in screwing up.
Click to expand...

Basically it spells out 155, Javelins and Stingers. All current inventory
 
#62,810
#62,810
AM64 said:
Russia (when they were "Soviets") didn't seem to have a problem saddling Ukraine with Chernobyl. And they definitely didn't have any thoughts about irresponsibly tracking through contaminated areas around Chernobyl, or damaging or destroying nuclear power plants in Ukraine after the invasion last year. Depleted uranium might not be the best thing for your health, but spreading irradiated fuel and contaminants is a whole different matter ... about as environmentally friendly as detonating a dirty bomb. Apparently if the Russians contaminate Ukrainian soil it's not a problem, though.
Click to expand...
Now WTF are you talking about? The Ukrainians were the ones attacking the nuke plant.
 
#62,811
#62,811
Orangeburst said:
Basically it spells out 155, Javelins and Stingers. All current inventory
Click to expand...

Agreed, but at the same time there are things like the "stockpiled Stinger" referenced without any real discussion on whether Stingers are being phased out and replaced. The NYT and a lot of other "news" sources tend to slant things to make one point or another. I've honestly given up on believing most of what the NYT and others report. They are quite duplicitous enough that if the dems had held back on replacing stockpiles of ammunition used in the sandbox wars that they'd gloss over that fact and let it look like the military (but never obama or fellow dems) were behind the problem.
 
#62,812
#62,812
AM64 said:
Agreed, but at the same time there are things like the "stockpiled Stinger" referenced without any real discussion on whether Stingers are being phased out and replaced. The NYT and a lot of other "news" sources tend to slant things to make one point or another. I've honestly given up on believing most of what the NYT and others report. They are quite duplicitous enough that if the dems had held back on replacing stockpiles of ammunition used in the sandbox wars that they'd gloss over that fact and let it look like the military (but never obama or fellow dems) were behind the problem.
Click to expand...

I think it is well known by any standard that the 155 stockpile, which probably has a decades long shelf life, is in trouble.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#62,813
#62,813
AM64 said:
I'd bet there's a whole lot behind those numbers - far more than just Ukraine. Some ammunition you'd suppose had been in use and will be in use for some time - like the 155mm rounds, but they didn't address what happens when the military moves from one weapon or system to another - obsolescence and future need; think when the the M14 and 7.62 ammunition gave way to the M16 and 5.56, and the 1911 with .45 ammo changed to a Beretta and 9mm ammo. That doesn't even touch on things like the changes in air to air and ground fired missiles. The article also didn't cover the drawdowns due to things like Iraq and Afghanistan, and it didn't talk about dem administrations and defense cuts or sequestration. The number is somewhat meaningless unless shelf life, obsolescence, and budget constraints are considered ... not to mention what we probably lost in Afghanistan while leaving. I don't think the NYT is going to go into historical detail about stuff the dems had a big hand in screwing up.
Click to expand...
Everything you mention here is a result of incompetence and/or poor planning on the part of the US govt. Self-inflicted.

Also, it is widely reported by both Western media and Russia media that the Russians are firing ~20k rounds/day, while the Kyiv regime forces are limited to roughly 5k/day. So for the Ukrainians to match the level of firing of the Russians, 200k rounds will last them a week and a half. Stretched out to only firing half of what Russia does will last 3 weeks. All that for $33 billion along with a Patriot missile system that had limited success in the Gulf War 30 years ago.

The Biden administration has promised — as part of $33 billion sent in military aid for the besieged country so far — a US Patriot air-defense system will be sent to Ukraine, along with over 200,000 rounds of artillery, rockets, and tank rounds.
Click to expand...
 
#62,814
#62,814
AM64 said:
Agreed, but at the same time there are things like the "stockpiled Stinger" referenced without any real discussion on whether Stingers are being phased out and replaced. The NYT and a lot of other "news" sources tend to slant things to make one point or another. I've honestly given up on believing most of what the NYT and others report. They are quite duplicitous enough that if the dems had held back on replacing stockpiles of ammunition used in the sandbox wars that they'd gloss over that fact and let it look like the military (but never obama or fellow dems) were behind the problem.
Click to expand...
You can't find a more pro-Ukraine media outlet that bends over backwards to put Ukraine in a good light than the NYT. What slant do you think they are trying to project in this article?
 
#62,816
#62,816
Rasputin_Vol said:
Now WTF are you talking about? The Ukrainians were the ones attacking the nuke plant.
Click to expand...

Russia's "energy terror" knocks out power to Ukraine's civilians - and its nuclear plants

Russian missile strikes close to nuclear plant, Ukraine says

Russia’s New Nuclear Threat: Power Plants as Weapons

Russia launched its latest invasion of Ukraine on February 24, and on March 4 Russian forces captured the nuclear power plant near Zaporizhzhia. After shelling the facility and causing a fire, Russian troops occupied it and stationed personnel and munitions there, in effect using the nuclear reactors as a shield for their offensive operations. Despite the initial fire, no essential equipment was damaged and Ukrainian technicians have continued to operate the complex. As the war drags on past its sixth month, however, concern for the safety of the facility has grown. The Ukrainian staff reports harassment and abuse by Russian forces, and the facility has been shelled, damaging electrical lines vital to the reactors’ cooling systems.
Click to expand...

You may or may not be aware, but one of the biggest problems a nuclear plant faces is loss of offsite power. Fukushima is a great example - offsite power was lost and onsite backup generators failed; when that happens things go downhill in a real hurry. It's not all over when a nuclear plant is in safe shutdown - power and maintenance of systems has to happen to keep it safe, and that's very much compromised with a war and troops occupying the plant and surroundings. It's not like flipping a switch to turn the place off and walking away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and NorthDallas40
#62,817
#62,817
Rasputin_Vol said:
Everything you mention here is a result of incompetence and/or poor planning on the part of the US govt. Self-inflicted.

Also, it is widely reported by both Western media and Russia media that the Russians are firing ~20k rounds/day, while the Kyiv regime forces are limited to roughly 5k/day. So for the Ukrainians to match the level of firing of the Russians, 200k rounds will last them a week and a half. Stretched out to only firing half of what Russia does will last 3 weeks. All that for $33 billion along with a Patriot missile system that had limited success in the Gulf War 30 years ago.
Click to expand...
Not even remotely the same SAM as the GW.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#62,819
#62,819
AM64 said:
Russia's "energy terror" knocks out power to Ukraine's civilians - and its nuclear plants

Russian missile strikes close to nuclear plant, Ukraine says

Russia’s New Nuclear Threat: Power Plants as Weapons



You may or may not be aware, but one of the biggest problems a nuclear plant faces is loss of offsite power. Fukushima is a great example - offsite power was lost and onsite backup generators failed; when that happens things go downhill in a real hurry. It's not all over when a nuclear plant is in safe shutdown - power and maintenance of systems has to happen to keep it safe, and that's very much compromised with a war and troops occupying the plant and surroundings. It's not like flipping a switch to turn the place off and walking away.
Click to expand...
Well first off... "Russian missile strikes close to nuclear plant, Ukraine says". Well, we know how reliable Ukrainian reporting is. Second, everyone is fully aware of the importance of off-site power. Obviously, the Russians knew what they were doing when they went into Zaporozhia plant.
 
#62,820
#62,820
Rasputin_Vol said:
Even if that is so, their performance hasn't been any better.

Opinion | Why U.S. Patriot missiles failed to stop the attack on Saudi oil sites

Patriot Missiles Are Made in America and Fail Everywhere

Why Did American Patriot Missiles Fail To Stop the Houthi's Attacks?
Click to expand...

An article from a non proliferation body that even has this caveat..

In fairness, the system deployed in Saudi Arabia — the Patriot Advanced Capability-2 or PAC-2 — is not well designed to intercept the Burkan-2 missiles that the Houthis are firing at Riyadh.


vs

“In contrast with the experience of Desert Storm, Patriot interceptors defeated every ballistic missile they engaged during the 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom. Since 2015, Patriot has successfully engaged scores of missiles and drones in the Yemen Missile War. Israel has likewise used it on a number of occasions to defeat drones, aircraft, and other threats.”
“Patriot to Ukraine: What Does It Mean?” by Mark Cancian and Tom Karako for the Center for Stratgic & International Studies, Dec. 16, 2022

The ultimate guide to the Patriot air defense system - Sandboxx
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#62,822
#62,822
Rasputin_Vol said:
Even if that is so, their performance hasn't been any better.

Opinion | Why U.S. Patriot missiles failed to stop the attack on Saudi oil sites

Patriot Missiles Are Made in America and Fail Everywhere

Why Did American Patriot Missiles Fail To Stop the Houthi's Attacks?
Click to expand...
That is why we are sending equipment to Ukraine. When these systems fail we go back to manufacture and say fix this. Then field test. But without war no way to truly test these things. Everything fails at first, which is one of the many reasons we are propping up Ukraine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top