War in Ukraine

#81,902
#81,902
MontyPython said:
It's so strange to hear negative comments about our MIC. The military is what made our country great. We spend more than the next 10 countries combined on our defense budget for a reason - to stay the strongest military power in the world. The MIC is an integral part of this equation. Raytheon and the rest of the gang are no more of an evil corporate entity aimed at bilking you out of your hard-earned money than Amazon. I say THANK GOD our MIC has most of the leading-edge technology in military applications compared to the rest of the god forsaken world.
Click to expand...

The Biden. Administration is more concerned about DEI in the military than they are with a well armed, highly motivated and capable military. Interest has been down because of it.


Women's History

Rachel Levine


Admiral Rachel L. Levine, MD​

 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#81,904
#81,904
BreatheUT said:
The Biden. Administration is more concerned about DEI in the military than they are with a well armed, highly motivated and capable military. Interest has been down because of it.


Women's History

Rachel Levine


Admiral Rachel L. Levine, MD​

Click to expand...

There are 223 admirals in the US Navy, your obsession with this one in the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps , is bizarre to say the least.

1729696287564.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#81,907
#81,907
TVOLS said:
www.twz.com

South Korea Could Send Advisors, Weapons To Ukraine Over North Korean Troop Movements

The first North Korean troops are expected to arrive in Russia's Kursk region tomorrow, Ukraine's Defense Intelligence Director told us.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
I don't see why SK cares that NK is sending troops. so what? both have been sending weapons to the respective sides. but now NK is donating its troops, that means less for SK to fight.

I guess the worry is that by committing blood to the fight, SK is worried that NK is locking in Russia to help them likewise.

I just don't see a future where NK/Russia win, and come out stronger for it. Russia and Putin have dropped NK before after they were no longer helpful, I don't see why it would be different now.
 
#81,914
#81,914
evillawyer said:
Yet we don't allow the Ukrainians to use US weapons to hit Russian bases. Makes zero sense.

Click to expand...

Except the Biden admin said they were considering lifting that restriction. This is simply blowback from absolutely terrible and short sighted foreign policy. Even a message board lawyer should be able to understand
 
#81,917
#81,917
evillawyer said:
Yet we don't allow the Ukrainians to use US weapons to hit Russian bases. Makes zero sense.

Click to expand...


The U.S. is not giving them longer range weapons (at the moment) which would be hard to determine if its carrying a nuclear package. Russia at least to this point isn't giving U.S. enemies this capacity at the moment, however it appears the UK/Germany might be moving in that direction.

So, one day there are a few dozen inbound missiles coming to the East coast with the capacity to carry multiple warheads from the middle east, what does the U.S. do? This is what Russia has been warning about i.e. WWIII or the real potential for it.

What you're suggesting is moronic in nature.
 
#81,918
#81,918
LSU-SIU said:
The U.S. is not giving them longer range weapons (at the moment) which would be hard to determine if its carrying a nuclear package. Russia at least to this point isn't giving U.S. enemies this capacity at the moment, however it appears the UK/Germany might be moving in that direction.

So, one day there are a few dozen inbound missiles coming to the East coast with the capacity to carry multiple warheads from the middle east, what does the U.S. do? This is what Russia has been warning about i.e. WWIII or the real potential for it.

What you're suggesting is moronic in nature.
Click to expand...
Russia knows where these missiles are fired from, immediately. Ukraine has no nuclear weapons.

It's a drastic threat of escalation by Putin.

We can argue if the move by the US is wise or not but this is a drastic escalation. Putin is basically threatening nuclear war if he can't have his way with the countries Russia abandoned in the past because it couldn't effectively lead, control or take care of anymore.
 
#81,919
#81,919
LSU-SIU said:
The U.S. is not giving them longer range weapons (at the moment) which would be hard to determine if its carrying a nuclear package. Russia at least to this point isn't giving U.S. enemies this capacity at the moment, however it appears the UK/Germany might be moving in that direction.

So, one day there are a few dozen inbound missiles coming to the East coast with the capacity to carry multiple warheads from the middle east, what does the U.S. do? This is what Russia has been warning about i.e. WWIII or the real potential for it.

What you're suggesting is moronic in nature.
Click to expand...
the "long range" stuff we are giving them is a couple hundred miles. thats the equivalent of SCUDs, which Russia has certainly given out to our enemies before.

for the ME to hit the US they would need something that goes a couple thousand miles. those are ICBMs. the US hasn't gotten close to anything with ICBM range or payload.

you are making yet another incredibly bad false equivalency, but its not your fault because you just parrot Putin and are incapable of free thought when it comes to Russia. anyone with two sticks of Ram worth of processing power knows both sides have already used weapons capable of delivering nuclear payloads. so there being "new" missiles doesn't change that.

and you guys have been chicken littling nuclear warfare by the West for a while now. Remember those "nuclear" tank rounds you and Ras were in a tizzy about? Only mushroom clouds I have seen have been conventional based, but here you are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#81,920
#81,920
KB5252 said:
Russia knows where these missiles are fired from, immediately. Ukraine has no nuclear weapons.

It's a drastic threat of escalation by Putin.

We can argue if the move by the US is wise or not but this is a drastic escalation. Putin is basically threatening nuclear war if he can't have his way with the countries Russia abandoned in the past because it couldn't effectively lead, control or take care of anymore.
Click to expand...
If Annie Jacobsen's sources are correct, Russia does not have a very good detection system. That's dangerous when the whole thing would be over in under 1.5hrs if someone makes the wrong move. Maybe we should think this thru a bit more?
 
#81,921
#81,921
utvolpj said:
If Annie Jacobsen's sources are correct, Russia does not have a very good detection system. That's dangerous when the whole thing would be over in under 1.5hrs if someone makes the wrong move. Maybe we should think this thru a bit more?
Click to expand...
Russia's erractism is completely uncontrollable by us, or anyone else. it is also not the fault on anyone on this side of the table. trying to place some fault or blame on us or Ukraine is just victim blaming. if they are that erratic to launch nukes when they aren't first hit by nukes, everything we do will ALWAYS be a risk that Russia will launch nukes. no matter how big, or little, or not at all.

you can't reward Russia everytime it threaten nuclear action.

all we "need" to do is let them know the standard rules of engagement, no nukes, will be upheld by our side. until or unless they can give proof positive of Ukrainian nukes, or Ukraine possessing nukes, we expect them to respect the same rules of engagement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#81,922
#81,922
LouderVol said:
Russia's erractism is completely uncontrollable by us, or anyone else. it is also not the fault on anyone on this side of the table. trying to place some fault or blame on us or Ukraine is just victim blaming. if they are that erratic to launch nukes when they aren't first hit by nukes, everything we do will ALWAYS be a risk that Russia will launch nukes. no matter how big, or little, or not at all.

you can't reward Russia everytime it threaten nuclear action.

all we "need" to do is let them know the standard rules of engagement, no nukes, will be upheld by our side. until or unless they can give proof positive of Ukrainian nukes, or Ukraine possessing nukes, we expect them to respect the same rules of engagement.
Click to expand...
But if we know the huge limitations of their tech yet choose to engage in this nonsense anyways then we are ultimately responsible. The consequences of this can end the world as we know it. Maybe the "we can only control ourselves" excuse just doesn't cut it when we are also being an aggressor.
 
#81,923
#81,923
KB5252 said:
Russia knows where these missiles are fired from, immediately. Ukraine has no nuclear weapons.

It's a drastic threat of escalation by Putin.

We can argue if the move by the US is wise or not but this is a drastic escalation. Putin is basically threatening nuclear war if he can't have his way with the countries Russia abandoned in the past because it couldn't effectively lead, control or take care of anymore.
Click to expand...

Where the missiles are fired from is not immaterial, see last post. I'm sorry you don't understand this simple concept, that's not my fault. There is no argument, if the West provides these weapons than they will for certain start to deploy longer range missiles to enemies of the West, with no real counter.

Up to this point, both Russia and U.S. haven't had to make to determination as to what the payload of a long range missiles is upon their territory is carrying a nuke. Up to this point both countries assume that it is a nuclear payload. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Putin is basically threatening nuclear war if he can't have his way with the countries Russia abandoned in the past because it couldn't effectively lead, control or take care of anymore.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I don't know what all this means. The Russians have pointed out the problem which is long-range capacity with potential nuclear payload.

You're not making any sense that I can see, its actually the opposite of your point.... the Russians are not giving these long-range weapons to U.S. enemies which can carry nuclear payload. What they have been saying is they will have to do what the U.S. is doing, give long range missiles to U.S. enemies these could be in the middle east, venzulea, cuba, north korea, etc.

There isn't anything complex about this which is why the West up to the point haven't provided them.

What you are suggesting is basically nuclear war.
 
Last edited:
#81,924
#81,924
utvolpj said:
If Annie Jacobsen's sources are correct, Russia does not have a very good detection system. That's dangerous when the whole thing would be over in under 1.5hrs if someone makes the wrong move. Maybe we should think this thru a bit more?
Click to expand...
I guess I haven't considered that Russia doesn't have sophisticated detection systems. It's hard to believe, but then again I guess it really shouldn't be.
 
#81,925
#81,925
LSU-SIU said:
Where the missiles are fired from is not immaterial, see last post. I'm sorry you don't understand this simple concept, that's not my fault. There is no argument, if the West provides these weapons than they will for certain start to deploy longer range missiles to enemies of the West, with no real counter.

Up to this point, both Russia and U.S. haven't had to make to determination as to what the payload of a long range missiles is upon their territory is carrying a nuke. Up to this point both countries assume that it is a nuclear payload. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH



I don't know what all this means. The Russians have pointed out the problem which is long-range capacity with potential nuclear payload.

You're not making any sense that I can see, its actually the opposite of your point.... the Russians are not giving these long-range weapons to U.S. enemies which can carry nuclear payload. What they have been saying is they will have to do what the U.S. is doing, give long range missiles to U.S. enemies these could be in the middle east, venzulea, cuba, north korea, etc.

There isn't anything complex about this which is why the West up to the point haven't provided them.

What you are suggesting is basically nuclear war.
Click to expand...
What I am saying is Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons...... Therefore, the nuclear capability point you mentioned is moot in regards to Russia.

What I'm saying is Russia and Russia alone are the ones threatening the nuclear angle here. There is no nuclear threat to Russia from Ukraine using these weapons.

And I'm not suggesting anything, I'm pointing out Russian escalation. Which looks like desperation when couple with news of a large scale North Korean force slated for Ukraine.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top