111–120 of 367 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, that's why supporting Ukraine is extremely important. As long as the aggressor still thinks there's a chance to conquer more territory, the war won't end.
I would say that the US also belongs in the agressor camp.
I don't think it's a "problem" that we don't have enough munitions to launch at other humans. It's a testament to our time that there aren't incentives for manufacturing death.
So should countries like Ukraine just sit around and sing Kumbaya then? What exactly are you suggesting?
That the US should be giving bunker busters, predator drones, and other modern long range munitions that can end a war in days instead of years to our allies proactively as a deterrent instead of trying to fund a modern war with 20th century weapons like short range artillery.
Industrialized war is unfathomable to western powers and that's not a bad thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>but perhaps we could have negotiated a peace during a conference at Minsk a decade ago or in Feb 2022 at the outbreak of hostilities Ukraine negotiated nonstop with Russia from 2014 (when Russia first seized some of their territory) until literally 1 week before the invasion in 2022. It was 8 years of nonstop negotiations, brokered by France & Germany. I'm always amazed more people don't know about this. How did neg…
[flagged]
The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine diligently documented the use of lethal force and resulting casualties in the low-intensity conflict before the full-scale invasion in 2022 and did not witness anything like what you describe. The number of civilian casualties was in low tens per year, mostly due to landmines and unexploded ordnance.
I really really enjoyed the piece[0], but boy, you think this is bad, wait until we're exchanging missiles with a peer military. Hundreds, maybe even thousands, of missiles[1] in the air at the same time, in a kaleidoscopic dazzle of altitudes, velocities, sensor profiles. Every combat simulation seems to turn into what you might call a "magazine fight" - i.e., who runs out of bullets first. We'll probably burn throu…
Same as for : > My solace is that in a real conflict, all of that red tape would be put to the side and people can get about building things. That's just not going to happen. A real conflict would involve nukes, and the war would be quickly over. I doubt that something close to Vietnam can happen again either. (And even for a 2nd Vietnam, I doubt that any significant artillery would be used when, as you point out, mi…
Artillery would be huge, missiles are great but they're expensive and you run out quickly. Afghanistan/Iraq were already being compared to Vietnam, and while you don't see it on the news so much, most of the kills in those conflicts were with artillery.
Rather than come up with a new manufacturing process for the existing munition design, why not develop a new munition (presumably with a new scalable process) that can be fired from existing weapons? No rounds seems like a worse condition than having equal-or-poorer performing rounds.
It’s not that the US doesn’t produce these weapons as much as Eastern Europeans approach to modern warfare is yeeting rounds 24/7.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No — but perhaps we could have negotiated a peace during a conference at Minsk a decade ago or in Feb 2022 at the outbreak of hostilities, rather than frantically send Boris Johnson to subvert it. Russia has consistently angled for Ukraine to be a neutral border between two blocs to facilitate trade — and that clearly would have been better for Ukraine than a senseless slaughter which destroyed a generation, by maimi…
The only "peace" settlement Putin would have accepted by Feb 2022 would have required the permanent secession of the then-occupied regions (and likely then some) to Russia. That clearly would have been better for Ukraine As if you know better than the Ukrainians themselves as to what's best for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, right lets replace cheap simple and dumb artillery we can't produce with super complex guided missiles with 1/10000th the production capability.
The rationale is that the ordnance on target ratio is way higher with missiles. 10,000 shells can be displaced by 100 missiles. A conflict like Russia/Ukraine isn’t happening with the US. A US / Russia conflict would have resulted in US air supremacy or a nuclear exchange.
That might still be a bad tradeoff given that these 155mm shells are apparently $8,000 each, whereas a Storm Shadow is apparently $3,200,000 a pop.
Typo in original and submission: 155mm, not 155M (which could be interpreted as 155 million something--dollars?) as in the submission, nor 155m (metres) as in the original.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not that the US doesn’t produce these weapons as much as Eastern Europeans approach to modern warfare is yeeting rounds 24/7.
I mean, Israel has demonstrated much the same approach (confined to a much smaller territory) nonstop over the past four months (first missiles and now 155mm artillery and tank shells), so it’s definitely not just an Eastern Europe thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Frankly, what Russia would prefer to happen in Ukraine is, to put it politely, their own fucking problem. I get why they might prefer that. But when they don't get their way, they are not allowed to invade a sovereign nation and slaughter thousands of civilians. Ukraine is allowed to pick who it wants to be associated with and Russia doesn't get a say. Also, at this point it is hilariously obvious that A) Russia will…
[flagged]
In the same way that the guy who tackles you in a dark alleyway and puts a knife to your neck would prefer that you submit to his demands "amicably".