Ukraine Protests

Status
Not open for further replies.
#8,152
#8,152
Rasputin_Vol said:
You are thinking from a rational point of view. The people I'm talking about are narcissists and sociopaths and they lack logic and reason.
Click to expand...

You mean like people that bump their own posts in an effort to try to prove they were right about something?

(yet generally aren't)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#8,154
#8,154
Rasputin_Vol said:
If the US sends weapons to Ukraine, Russia will respond. If they respond in the manner that they are saying (arming Iran), that could mean conventional weapons or nuclear weapons...

That is what I'm saying. Don't act like this is just some idea out of left field.

And lets suppose that Russia only offers conventional weapons to the Iranians. In turn, the US would be expected to reinforce the Saudis. And then Russia will respond with more... and so on as the stakes are raised incrementally higher.
Click to expand...

The Russians already supply the Iranians with conventional arms and Putin will not nuclear arm Iran.
 
#8,157
#8,157
volprof said:
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy | Foreign Affairs
Click to expand...

I'll check it out. I'm partially through the Foreign Affairs article and already see a lot of could and might and a whole lot of similar words.

I think they are vastly underestimating the Russian's capabilities though as the article was written well before Putin started tossing money back at the military. I'd be willing to bet he's gotten the strategic forces back into order since being the President (twice)
 
#8,159
#8,159
Grand Vol said:
I'll check it out. I'm partially through the Foreign Affairs article and already see a lot of could and might and a whole lot of similar words.

I think they are vastly underestimating the Russian's capabilities though as the article was written well before Putin started tossing money back at the military. I'd be willing to bet he's gotten the strategic forces back into order since being the President (twice)
Click to expand...

The "cookie error" link (have no clue why it did that but it still works) is the official article. I'm sure several criticisms could be given, but it's pretty darn thorough, especially the further you read. Like I said though, this was written nearly a decade ago (2006) and even then they admitted that this primacy could probably only hold out for a decade or so. We're basically there now.
 
#8,160
#8,160
@WorldNews 5m5 minutes ago

State Dept. "closely monitoring reports of a new column of Russian military equipment moving toward" Debaltseve, Ukraine - @JustinFishelABC
0 replies 13 retweets 3 favorites
 
#8,162
#8,162
Burhead said:
@WorldNews 5m5 minutes ago

State Dept. "closely monitoring reports of a new column of Russian military equipment moving toward" Debaltseve, Ukraine - @JustinFishelABC
0 replies 13 retweets 3 favorites
Click to expand...

Then they should have crystal clear 3D color satellite images of this alleged convoy coming.
 
#8,163
#8,163
volprof said:
The "cookie error" link (have no clue why it did that but it still works) is the official article. I'm sure several criticisms could be given, but it's pretty darn thorough, especially the further you read. Like I said though, this was written nearly a decade ago (2006) and even then they admitted that this primacy could probably only hold out for a decade or so. We're basically there now.
Click to expand...

The problem is, the author is basically leading you to the conclusion this is the only reason we are upgrading our nuclear forces for a first strike option. The problem is, that's not even the case at all.

The part where he talks about the Trident II upgrades with fuzes that can be set to either airburst or ground burst. That's not just a first strike reason as a below ground burst can actually limit fallout after detonation. And being that the world was awed by our capability to penetrate hardened targets during Desert Storm, they made their targets harder. And the US, trying to keep ahead of the curve designs a warhead that won't have a problem with the existing threats or even potential future ones no matter how deep the target may be.

Think about the F-22 for example. When it was designed, hell, even now, it is light years ahead of anything the Russians, Europeans or Chinese can throw at it. They didn't plan on it being dominate for only five to ten years and replaced by another airframe like we had in the Cold War. They designed it to defeat threats right now and 15-20 years down the road. To remain dominate for years to come until we can afford a replacement and the situations demands it.

Or the fact the MX Missile (LGM-118) warheads were being put on Minuteman (LGM-30) missiles. The warheads on the Minuteman were older, less accurate and less efficient. Americans have always tried to be more accurate, more powerful and do things better in the weapons department. So taking a more accurate warhead and mating it to a system that's less labor intensive (according to sources) and that in turn makes it far more efficient is smart. We had the warheads anyway, why waste them?

Another weapons analogy along these lines is the AIM-7 Sparrow and the AIM-120 AMRAAM. Sure, the AIM-7 worked and was reasonably effective. But the AIM-120 was better, faster, more accurate and had a greater hit probability. The AIM-7 still worked though so why did we replace it? Because we had something better come along just like we did with the LGM-118 warhead.

The author wants you to believe the only reason we are upgrading our strategic forces is only because of a first strike potential. It's not only that by any means. Weapons development has been and will continue to go on. And we are world leaders in smaller, faster, more accurate and deadly weapons. Which in turn keeps the world in check because they know we are faster, smaller, more destructive and more accurate than they are.

ETA: Mistaken terminology. Subterranean nuclear burst as opposed to a standard ground burst in paragraph 1.
 
Last edited:
#8,168
#8,168
volprof said:
The "cookie error" link (have no clue why it did that but it still works) is the official article. I'm sure several criticisms could be given, but it's pretty darn thorough, especially the further you read. Like I said though, this was written nearly a decade ago (2006) and even then they admitted that this primacy could probably only hold out for a decade or so. We're basically there now.
Click to expand...

I loved a couple of the comments though:

RUS: Main misleading Americans, providing a technological Russian army. No longer the 90s. b-2 stealth it's not, it's a bucket that shines even on older radars.

Particularly interesting as the author of this primitive text forgot hypersonic missile defense? Or cosmic forces?

While this is a bucket of charge at the Russian border near the shores of New York will emerge Russian submarine and then will be a lot of grief for ordinary citizens in the United States.

While bucket-B-2 long will cloud fragments remind range air defense, the 4th generation half-its 8000 km.

Who forgot to remind both the Black Sea old SU-24 with a fixed station electronic suppression, knocked all the navigation at the latest American destroyers, AEGIS just did not work in this state with a magnetic compass, super fresh bucket stood 1.5 hours.

Draw your own conclusions and do not believe a liar.
Click to expand...

And:

And when the U.S. missile defense learned to resist immune HC-22?

This rocket is now a U.S. guarantee destruction in any case, if it comes to Russian tanks buried Washington as Carthage.
Click to expand...

Nothing like some good gibberish to liven up the debate.
 
#8,170
#8,170
@mletterle 6m6 minutes ago

ALOT of reports out of the Russian-separatist camp that they have taken Debaltseve. Not so much from the Ukrainian side..
 
#8,172
#8,172
Grand Vol said:
I loved a couple of the comments though:



And:



Nothing like some good gibberish to liven up the debate.
Click to expand...

are the Russians still rocking T-90s as their main battle tanks? if so I am not worried about their 'tank dominance burying Washington'

since we were talking about arms escalation what ever happened to the striker program? those things were BA.
 
#8,173
#8,173
LouderVol said:
since we were talking about arms escalation what ever happened to the striker program? those things were BA.
Click to expand...

They are still around. And if you keep them on a roadway, they are perfectly fine.

Great for urban combat, not so great for places it can get stuck easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8,174
#8,174
Grand Vol said:
They are still around. And if you keep them on a roadway, they are perfectly fine.

Great for urban combat, not so great for places it can get stuck easily.
Click to expand...

wheels vs tracks. i am a fan of the striker because it is a, arguably, better version of what the bradley is trying to be.
 
#8,175
#8,175
LouderVol said:
wheels vs tracks. i am a fan of the striker because it is a, arguably, better version of what the bradley is trying to be.
Click to expand...

Minus the AT capability, mobility capability, anti-APC capability and doesn't have an engine that was powerful enough when designed. And complete lack of environmental systems on the one with the anti-tank gun installed.

It's a do all vehicle in various configurations that doesn't really do any one well. Different designs and whatnot, but for modern mechanized warfare, it's hard to beat the Brad. For urban combat, the Stryker does okay save the fact it wasn't designed for anti-mine/IED operations in mind.

Like a great many things that Shinseki had in store for the Army, it ended up not being quite as great as he envisioned.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top