War in Ukraine

[volbound1700]

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.

That we know of...

Agree with general point of your email. Only Russia has been threatening Nuclear Action. There are rumors that Trump did when he was President (towards Russia) but that hasn't been proven.

 

[Rocky_Top_Vol13]

 

[KB5252]

For what it's worth I don't like the direction this is going. Too much money has been spent, the MIC doesn't need our money.

 

[BeardedVol]

For what it's worth I funny like the direction this is going. Too much money has been spent, the MIC doesn't need our money.

I have to wonder about those of you that speak about the "MIC" as if it's some monolithic single entity, bent on fleecing you personally out of your tax dollars, as it's sole reason for existing.

 

[KB5252]

I have to wonder about those of you that speak about the "MIC" as if it's some monolithic single entity, bent on fleecing you personally out of your tax dollars, as it's sole reason for existing.

I worry about those that don't. It's a machine and the lobby and powerful people attached to it are fleecing us....... How do you think members of Congress amass hundreds of millions in net worth while making a hundred and some change each year?

 

[NorthDallas40]

I worry about those that don't. It's a machine and the lobby and powerful people attached to it are fleecing us....... How do you think members of Congress amass hundreds of millions in net worth while making a hundred and some change each year?

So the MIC does indeed have a powerful lobby. And the inbreeding/crossbreeding with government officials is completely unacceptable. And in reference to those politicians you point out whom have amassed all that wealth. You know they didn’t have to take the grift!

Eisenhower’s final address gets referenced on this forum. And it’s almost always taken out of context. Eisenhower was correct in the power that the defense/aerospace industry has. But his speech was a charge to government officials to do their jobs and not get in bed with the industry. Retain their ethics and maintain oversight.

I’ve stated many times I worked/work in this industry. I’ve also stated that $500 hammers make complete sense to me. Those kinds of prices are exactly what the system is set up to produce. The “it’s built by the lowest bidder” claim is a red herring. The lowest bid defense/aerospace hammer is still 10x or more the Ace hardware hammer.

 

[BeardedVol]

I worry about those that don't. It's a machine and the lobby and powerful people attached to it are fleecing us....... How do you think members of Congress amass hundreds of millions in net worth while making a hundred and some change each year?

You do realize that there are literally thousands of companies that makeup the 'MIC' and the vast majority, do not have lobbying wings, or patrons in Congress, right?

For most of you "MIC" is just a boogeyman buzzword that politicians throw out to get an emotional response from people who don't actually know how defense appropriations work.

 

[KB5252]

So the MIC does indeed have a powerful lobby. And the inbreeding/crossbreeding with government officials is completely unacceptable. And in reference to those politicians you point out whom have amassed all that wealth. You know they didn’t have to take the grift!

Eisenhower’s final address gets referenced on this forum. And it’s almost always taken out of context. Eisenhower was correct in the power that the defense/aerospace industry has. But his speech was a charge to government officials to do their jobs and not get in bed with the industry. Retain their ethics and maintain oversight.

I’ve stated many times I worked/work in this industry. I’ve also stated that $500 hammers make complete sense to me. Those kinds of prices are exactly what the system is set up to produce. The “it’s built by the lowest bidder” claim is a red herring. The lowest bid defense/aerospace hammer is still 10x or more the Ace hardware hammer.

I'm sure all this is true..... I'm equally sure that we are being fleeced by vague descriptions of and creative accounting.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I'm sure all this is true..... I'm equally sure that we are being fleeced by vague descriptions of and creative accounting.

Oh the accounting is largely accurate. It accurately reflects the overpricing built into the procurement process. It’s working exactly as intended. You can’t get the entire rank and file worker base to commit fraud willingly.

 

[LouderVol]

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.

We are not being an aggressor. that is such a brain dead Putin argument. Russia attacks Ukraine. Ukraine defends itself with American weapons. PJ: America is the aggressor. put it in an individual context. your friend is getting shot at by someone else. you don't shoot at the third party, but instead give your friend a gun to shoot back. are YOU the aggressor? common sense says NO. at worst we are an enabler; but its completely inane for the third party shooter to try and play victim in a fight they started.

again there is nothing TO detect. if we were giving them nukes, I would agree with you. that would be irresponsible of us given Russia's tech issues, beyond the proliferation of nuclear weapons. but we aren't. we know that, the ukrainians know that, the rest of the world knows that. you and the russians know that, but are playing dumb.

might as well argue Russia doesn't have the technology to detect Wonder Woman's Invisible Plane, so it makes us the aggressor that we are giving Ukraine F16s, and thus Russia can nuke whoever they want.

 

[utvolpj]

We are not being an aggressor. that is such a brain dead Putin argument. Russia attacks Ukraine. Ukraine defends itself with American weapons. PJ: America is the aggressor. put it in an individual context. your friend is getting shot at by someone else. you don't shoot at the third party, but instead give your friend a gun to shoot back. are YOU the aggressor? common sense says NO. at worst we are an enabler; but its completely inane for the third party shooter to try and play victim in a fight they started.

again there is nothing TO detect. if we were giving them nukes, I would agree with you. that would be irresponsible of us given Russia's tech issues, beyond the proliferation of nuclear weapons. but we aren't. we know that, the ukrainians know that, the rest of the world knows that. you and the russians know that, but are playing dumb.

might as well argue Russia doesn't have the technology to detect Wonder Woman's Invisible Plane, so it makes us the aggressor that we are giving Ukraine F16s, and thus Russia can nuke whoever they want.

This didn't just start recently with Russia attacking Ukraine. Your analogy is backward

When the last time us policy was truly about defense?

 

[LouderVol]

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

so the Ukrainians having short range missiles capable of carrying a nuclear payload ISN'T an issue to you or Russia, but them having long range missiles capable of carrying a nuclear payload IS?

again as I have pointed out the tit-for-tat thing on "long range" missiles is actually the US stepping up to the Russians equipping our enemies ALREADY with long range weapons. the weapons we are now giving Ukraine are the equivalent of SCUDs. there are a couple dozen enemy nations of the US with SCUDs. Russia has used similar weapons already in Ukraine, whatever replaced the SCUDs in their arsenal.

once again this is just Russia complaining about a fair fight.

I very seriously doubt either side's first reaction to being a land war with a neighbor with ZERO nukes, and that neighbor launches a missile at them, is to assume its a nuke. heck you MIGHT have an argument if the ONLY payload for those missiles were nukes. but they aren't. they aren't even primarily a nuclear delivery method in US doctrine.

we are giving Ukraine plenty of vehicles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, are you and Russia also going to nuke them if they cross the Russian border? the obvious answer is NO, because that has already happened. same thing with missiles, Ukraine has in the past used missiles CAPABLE of carrying nukes. no problems. but suddenly its an issue because we doubled the range of the missiles we are sending?

 

[LSU-SIU]

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.

1. Whether the Ukraine has nuclear weapons or not is not known, meaning they can be given a nuclear warhead. There is no way to know what the payload is. That's like having Russia launch missiles from the middle east and saying they don't have nukes. The U.S. would have to assume those missiles have a nuclear payload. This isn't difficult, if you are having issues with this.... not sure further discussion is going to help.

2. Russia is saying if long-range weapons are given and used than they have to make a determination as to what the payload is. The rest of you statement you can go back to #1.

3. No, Russia isn't doing anything, not really, neither is the West. What Russia is saying is they will have to respond in kind if the U.S. gives the Ukraine the capacity.

There isn't anything complex about any of this. I don't even see the problem, if that is what the West does than I would expect a similar response.

Simply put, the U.S. will have to make determination on any inbound missiles as to their payload which would most likely require a nuclear response before its known than the determination would have to be whether payloads are sent to Russia. This just isn't complex in any way.

 

[BeardedVol]

Russian logistics truly are a marvel to behold.

Russian troops 'have no idea what to do with North Korean soldiers'

Ukraine 's intelligence services released audio of what they claim to be Russian troops moaning about the arrival of North Korean fighters and squabbling about how they will be equipped

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[LouderVol]

This didn't just start recently with Russia attacking Ukraine. Your analogy is backward

When the last time us policy was truly about defense?

Ukraine or the US invaded Russia? wtf are you smoking?

the worst thing the Ukrainians did to Russia was kick out the Russian puppet who betrayed Ukraine.

the worst thing the US did to Russia was stay on good terms with Ukraine.

neither one of those comes anywhere close to anything even resembling aggression.

 

[utvolpj]

Ukraine or the US invaded Russia? wtf are you smoking?

the worst thing the Ukrainians did to Russia was kick out the Russian puppet who betrayed Ukraine.

the worst thing the US did to Russia was stay on good terms with Ukraine.

neither one of those comes anywhere close to anything even resembling aggression.

The us wasn't piling up weapons and pushing nato even though we promised not to as we knew that was a red line? I must be mistaken and the us just noticed Ukraine a couple years ago

 

[BeardedVol]

The us wasn't piling up weapons and pushing nato even though we promised not to as we knew that was a red line? I must be mistaken and the us just noticed Ukraine a couple years ago

No.

The US gave no significant military aid before Russia began the invasion in 2014, and even afterwards for 8 years we only gave them a total of $2.8 billion in military aid, mostly in the form of small arms and training.

It wasn't until Putin decided to go all in, in 2022, that any significant military aid was provided to Ukraine.

 

[utvolpj]

No.

The US gave no significant military aid before Russia began the invasion in 2014, and even afterwards for 8 years we only gave them a total of $2.8 billion in military aid, mostly in the form of small arms and training.

It wasn't until Putin decided to go all in, in 2022, that any significant military aid was provided to Ukraine.

Billions isn't significant? We've also been meddling with them for decades to get a friendly admin (which you'll deny). The simple fact is that we knew decades ago that this was a red line for Putin (current cia director said it back then) and stepped over it anyways. Now we're whining that he actually called us on it. Yes, the us sought this or at the very least they ignored every warning sign. Likely because Congress is in the pocket of the mic

 

[BeardedVol]

Billions isn't significant? We've also been meddling with them for decades to get a friendly admin (which you'll deny). The simple fact is that we knew decades ago that this was a red line for Putin (current cia director said it back then) and stepped over it anyways. Now we're whining that he actually called us on it. Yes, the us sought this or at the very least they ignored every warning sign. Likely because Congress is in the pocket of the mic

No, $2.8 billion over 8 years is not significant when talking about military aid.

What "red line" are you referring to?

NATO had already told Ukraine they were not getting an invite in 2008. It wasn't brought back up by Ukraine until after Putin had already invaded in 2014.

The US and EU were not giving any military aid until after 2014, and even then, it was next to nothing.

There was no NATO offer, there were no weapons buildups, and there was no military aid until after Russia began the invasion in 2014.

 

[utvolpj]

No, $2.8 billion over 8 years is not significant when talking about military aid.

What "red line" are you referring to?

NATO had already told Ukraine they were not getting an invite in 2008. It wasn't brought back up by Ukraine until after Putin had already invaded in 2014.

The US and EU were not giving any military aid until after 2014, and even then, it was next to nothing.

There was no NATO offer, there were no weapons buildups, and there was no military aid until after Russia began the invasion in 2014.

And in 2014 there were no actions Moscow would view as hostile? I know how you love the govt narrative that is all Russia but the us had been pushing this along for a long time

 

[BeardedVol]

And in 2014 there were no actions Moscow would view as hostile? I know how you love the govt narrative that is all Russia but the us had been pushing this along for a long time

Lol, what US actions in 2014 do you believe justified Putin's decision to invade Ukraine?

Be specific.

 

[LSU-SIU]

And in 2014 there were no actions Moscow would view as hostile? I know how you love the govt narrative that is all Russia but the us had been pushing this along for a long time

The U.S. knew what the result of their actions were going to be as even the U.S. military briefed Congress in the late 90s multiple times as to this to this potential general outcome. The U.S. military was gently telling Congress this probably wasn't a great idea at all and the reasons why. The rest of the U.S. ignored these warnings and actually stepped up the campaign harder than what the military briefed as to their theoretical situation. Russia sent out warnings before Putin was a thing i.e. by the mid-90s. The U.S. has ignored these warnings, and the warnings from its own military. The U.S. never did care about the Ukraine, its simply a tool to be used. People are trying to rewrite history, imo, its all available for public viewing (which I have linked portions of) in the U.S. Congressional Record and of course, and that is just the public record i.e. classified briefs.

The Congressional Record also exposed that what the U.S. military was doing in Europe made no sense i.e. reduction of military spending due to the cold war being over and useless equipment if there was a direct war with Russia. Conveniently, Afghanistan and Iraq 2 by magic came on board.

I actually watched live on CSPAN the Congressional hearings on this in the late 90s while I was still employed by the federal government. I was interested as I was already way down the path of doubting why I was a part of the war machine and it had nothing to do with Russia. People can either choose to read the Congressional Record, or in the alternative rewrite the situation in context or without context.

These things have been basically determined by non-elected government and non-government officials for about 3 decades. People really don't want to hear this though.

The best case result at this point is the world isn't brought to thermonuclear war over a garbage can, which is what the world thinks of the Ukraine. Its the world's biggest toilet to take a dump in. It is what it is.

 

[hog88]

I have to wonder about those of you that speak about the "MIC" as if it's some monolithic single entity, bent on fleecing you personally out of your tax dollars, as it's sole reason for existing.

Because it is.

 

[BeardedVol]

Because it is.

You do realize that there are literally thousands of companies that makeup the 'MIC' and the vast majority, do not have lobbying wings, or patrons in Congress, right?

For most of you "MIC" is just a boogeyman buzzword that politicians throw out to get an emotional response from people who don't actually know how defense appropriations work.

Case in point.

 

[hog88]

Case in point.

You are a joke