holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
I don't think the US would nuke Russia unless Russia nuked US territory or troops first.
I agree. ( mark the date) and I agree, Nukes are mostly obsolete
I don't think the US would nuke Russia unless Russia nuked US territory or troops first.
I agree. ( mark the date) and I agree, Nukes are mostly obsolete
Scuds were Mach 5, which is the threshold for hypersonic.Scuds could barely get past mach4. Russia's new missiles are in excess of Mach 10.
of course,Or, and I'm just spitballing here, Japan could have minded their own business and *not* attacked their neighbors, and they wouldn't have gotten the sun dropped on them twice.
Seems like that would have been a *much* better plan in the long term.
Putin seems to be determined to follow the same course.
Well then, I guess if NATO gets involved in Ukraine, it will be on the grounds of national security too.Russia invaded on the grounds of national security. we went into Iraq and afganistan on the grounds of national security. WMD's
Your not all wrong there, Nato doesnt want russia there either,Well then, I guess if NATO gets involved in Ukraine, it will be on the grounds of national security too.
Does Putin really want that to happen ? Maybe he should quit threatening other peoples national security.
I think Trump will tell Zelensky to accept that Russia owns some of Ukraine now and deal with it.of course,
Thats not the course Putin is following , Hes not going to take that shitty deal, hes going to see what Trump does I think trump will give zelenski some time to get a deal before he pulls the plug , But I think he will pull that plug . Putin will wait and see if anything changes , but continue to move into Ukraine . I think he will want to go the dnipro river and take Odessa , I think thats what he wants
the only thing stopping him is the ukraine army, but they cant do so forever, they are falling back now , and if the money dries up soldiers and goverment workers dont get paid and the government collapses
Scuds were Mach 5, which is the threshold for hypersonic.
THAAD was specifically designed to shoot down IRBMs like the Oreshnik.
It is nothing new. IRBMs have been around since the 70s, and Oreshnik is a bog standard IRBM.
Pretty shitty deal for Ukraine though.Your not all wrong there, Nato doesnt want russia there either,
breaking Ukraine in half like Germany was is the best deal for NATO and Russia
That was brand new, 40 years ago.The extremely small knowledge I have, is I think what Russia is saying that is unique about this new variant, is that it has some sort of customizable and modular variations on multiple independent reentry vehicles. It can carry a combination of inert vehicles, decoys, multiple nuclear warheads etc.... that's seems to be the most interesting development with this weapon otherwise it's basically the same as every other tried and true ICBM or IRBM
Pretty shitty deal for Ukraine though.
I'm not sure why you guys think Russia should get a say though.
Does Ukraine get a buffer between *them* and Russia ? Seems like they've got the best case for being someone who needs it.
NATO doesn't need a buffer because they would curb stomp Russia in any conflict.
A buffer doesn't help Russia either, because they would get curb stomped in any conflict either way.
That was brand new, 40 years ago.
It is not anything special anymore.
The next big thing is going to be Musk's starship dropping the price to orbit so low that things like Rods from God become economical.
I can see the US military having real sci-fi shit like orbital drop paratroopers complete with heavy weapons like tanks.
Imagine delivering a complete tank battalion from Vandenberg to anywhere on earth in 45 mins. Good luck defending against that.
I think it's a lesson we learned in WWII, nothing new.One thing I think the world has learned in this testing ground is you cannot allow an offensive to bog down and become static where defensive positions can be created to build trenches and infrastructure for drone operations. In any future war speed and continued sustainment will be key to prevent an enemy from doing what has happened here where there are thousands of casualties for kilometers of gains. It's very WW1 all over again. There's going to be some sort of new age blitzkrieg doctrine created to counter. Everything old is new again.
We're right back at 1920-30s army doctrine study and experiments
Scuds were Mach 5, which is the threshold for hypersonic.
THAAD was specifically designed to shoot down IRBMs like the Oreshnik.
It is nothing new. IRBMs have been around since the 70s, and Oreshnik is a bog standard IRBM.
The losing nation always gets the shaft.Pretty shitty deal for Ukraine though.
I'm not sure why you guys think Russia should get a say though.
Does Ukraine get a buffer between *them* and Russia ? Seems like they've got the best case for being someone who needs it.
NATO doesn't need a buffer because they would curb stomp Russia in any conflict.
A buffer doesn't help Russia either, because they would get curb stomped in any conflict either way.
The losing nation always gets the shaft.
They were also getting shot down by PAC-2 Patriots who's ABM capability could best be described as "in Beta testing". They were officially just SAMs that had some brand new software hacks added to enable their use as ABM.Most scuds that were launched never went above 4. Designed to go 5, but rarely made it. Shooting that down, compared to one traveling 10 is much different.
There are various reasons for that, One is that the accuracy , range and effectiveness, of newer antitank weapons on both sides capable of hitting tanks out to 5 miles , The use of GPS guided weapons, and of course drones and real time satellites.It's just that nobody has failed the blitzkrieg quite so spectacularly as Russia did when they tried it.
I think the biggest factor is thwarting the initial Russian attack was their failure to bring enough fuel...There are various reasons for that, One is that the accuracy , range and effectiveness, of newer antitank weapons on both sides capable of hitting tanks out to 5 miles , The use of GPS guided weapons, and of course drones and real time satellites.
And I believe the Russian army and especially the leadership, was not ready to go to war .
on the other hand the Russians defeated everything NATO threw at it , and Ukraine wasnt much better on the offense than the Russians .
Its like the American civil war where the weapons out paced the tactics
Sure thats it.I think the biggest factor is thwarting the initial Russian attack was their failure to bring enough fuel...
View attachment 251342
Speaker Mike Johnson says there will be no new funding for Ukraine under Biden:
"It is not the place of Joe Biden to make that decision now. We have a newly elected president, and we're going to wait and take the new Commander-in-Chief's direction on that. I don't expect any Ukraine funding to come up."
Good.
Well of course there won't: Congress couldn't pass an emergency government funding Bill in the weeks left of Biden in Office...must be double-speak is a RINO prerequisite too.View attachment 251342
Speaker Mike Johnson says there will be no new funding for Ukraine under Biden:
"It is not the place of Joe Biden to make that decision now. We have a newly elected president, and we're going to wait and take the new Commander-in-Chief's direction on that. I don't expect any Ukraine funding to come up."
Good.