What exactly do you think is going to happen? I really don’t think you comprehend the absolute ridiculous amount of funding that we divert from everything else into the military industrial complex. American strategic policy is to be able to simultaneously wage four full-blown continent spanning wars at once spread around the globe. I sincerely doubt that a bunch of pissed of Yemenites threaten the American military industrial complex. Yemmen may be a thorn but the US is a lion. Thorns discourage lions they don’t stop them.
American strategic policy is to be able to simultaneously wage four full-blown continent spanning wars at once spread around the globe.
Bruh they nearly run out of artillery ammo on a single proxy war. Entire US military is geared towards bombing defenseless countries and siphoning that “ridiculous amount of funding” you said into pockets of war profiteers. US military is exactly the same costeffective as US healthcare.
The US has over 700 bases worldwide. This is for rapid deployment of forces. Those bases are stocked. The issue of supplying Ukraine with artillery munitions isn’t that we don’t have the munitions. It’s that we don’t want to touch our stockpile and we never will as it’s not to be used except in the case of all out war. Since we are not an howitzer based artillery dependant nation, and we are not directly at war with Russia we don’t exactly have much of our logistics pointed to production of those munitions as howitzer based artillery is an antiquated tertiary weapon platform. So we gave away the excess supply we had and now industry is retooling to meet the new orders for artillery production.
The issue of supplying Ukraine with artillery munitions isn’t that we don’t have the munitions. It’s that we don’t want to touch our stockpile and we never will as it’s not to be used except in the case of all out war.
And why do you think that is, genius? It’s because America and NATO don’t have the industrial capacity to replenish those shells in time.
Since we are not an howitzer based artillery dependant nation
Reality doesn’t work like that, there’s no such thing as an army that doesn’t rely on artillery in a land war unless you can get away with having air superiority against a nation that doesn’t have their own air force and air defen… do you see where I’m going with this?
howitzer based artillery is an antiquated tertiary weapon platform
I’m glad you mentioned that last point about air superiority. Could you do me a favor and remind me which country owns the first largest Air Force? The second largest Air Force, and the third largest Air Force. Oh right that’s the USAF the USAAF and the USN.
I see that irony is not your forte. I’m trying to tell you that the US cannot get away with the “air superiority” tactics they did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc because countries like Russia and China have a lot of air defenses and their own air forces. Do you get it now?
Replying as a second comment. Just so you see this, but this was intended as an edit. Russia can’t defend its own airspace from drone attacks based out of Ukraine. You realize this right? Not saturation attacks, just straight up commercial grade civilian drones 15 to 20 of them launched at a time. Traveling several hundred miles into Russian airspace and detonating on targets… They cannot detect them, let alone defend from them. I would expect China and India to have much better capabilities however.
This is an idiotic argument. Ukraine has one third of all western AD in Europe and it is still unable to fully defend against Russian drones and missiles. Smaller, lower flying targets are harder to detect and hit than big manned jets. They are also more expendable so you can afford to use them more recklessly. Drones are regularly shot down in great numbers or brought down by EW, if this happened to manned aircraft it would be a disaster. If the US tried using its jets against any country with halfway decent AD its pilots who took years and billions of dollars to train would start dying like flies, not to mention aircraft being destroyed that is thousands of times more expensive than a drone, and there would be the mother of all scandals back home. The US has no capacity to absorb real losses, it’s why they only pick on the most defenseless countries and non-state actors.
Do you understand that the reason that the US is having its proxy war in Ukraine is that we get to test all of our equipment for free? So far we are not impressed by the fact that Russia’s top of the line gear is being smacked down by our shit from 1990. While our air defense systems are still operational and dishing out punishment.
Do you understand that the reason that the US is having its proxy war in Ukraine is that…
The containment strategy against Russia is failed and they decided to fight back, yes
we get to test all of our equipment for free
I wouldn’t call throwing EU economies into recession and disarming NATO “free” lol
So far we are not impressed by the fact that Russia’s top of the line gear is being smacked down by our shit from 1990.
You live in fantasy land, Ukraine is getting pounded by Russia, abandoned by America and you’re still high off the MSM farts with stories of pensioners downing jets with rifles and Russian generals dying every week
NATO countries donating outdated equipment and using it as an excuse to buy new toys. Yes totally disarmed.
It’s cost the US 3%of it’s Military budget to have Russian capabilities utterly crippled. And this conflict has encouraged inter-european cooperation and strengthened NATO logistics for minimal year-over-year cost increase. However, as Russia is finding out, Europe does not need Russian energy.
XD this is why they have no ammo because for them the primary weapon are political bribes and drones which are good again weddings, and other tools of terror and “short victorious wars”.
Ah yes, because when we invent a slap chop missile to minimize collateral damage, that’s a bad thing. Obviously it’s less efficient. Obviously it cost 200 times as much as an artillery shell. Clearly the logistically superior tactic is to fire a 120 mm artillery shell into a civilian crowded area and obliterate the entire wedding instead of just one car. Oh right, that’s what you don’t like…
It’s almost like I realize that I live in a for-profit driven country. But again, at the same time is almost like our specialized hyper expensive tools actually get the job done versus praying that the artillery round connects with the right target over the horizon.
If it cost 200 times more for a single missile but you need to fire 200 artillery shells to accomplish the same result. Well, what’s cheaper?. The missile can be fired by one dude. Several thousand miles away sitting on his ass in a cargo container. The towed artillery will require minimum five guns and 10 men per gun.
You need to understand we live in a disposable razor society. We don’t care about straight razor economics.
If it cost 200 times more for a single missile but you need to fire 200 artillery shells to accomplish the same result. Well, what’s cheaper?
Shells are way easier to produce than guided missiles, this comparison is asinine. Why are you comparing just the “price” of the two options? Have you also considered that artillery is not just for destroying things but also to deny control of an area or send support fire to a position? Good luck doing that with one fucking missile, I’ll take the 200 shells.
Liberals shouldn’t speak about things they don’t know at all, they shouldn’t speak ever
I love how you think I’m a liberal. I’m not a conservative either. If field artillery was as useful as you claim, then Russia wouldn’t be doing so poorly. There is a reason that we don’t use carpet bombing anymore and moved to precision guided munitions.
I don’t know where you get that the US is « ready to wage 4 continent spanning wars » but last time I checked, most of US wars since ww2 ended up in humiliating defeat against third world countries with barely any Air Force and no way to strike back at America directly.
Nobody takes the American military seriously after Vietnam and Afghanistan. Nobody here thinks Yemenis will be in Washington tomorrow. All we’re saying is this will turn into a quagmire that the US will eventually lose just like Afghanistan or any other war the US has participated in after WW2.
So you agree with my summary that it will be a thorn. One that will be swiftly forgotten once we are no longer standing on it. The US has a monopoly on violence. I’m not saying it’s justified. I’m stating that it’s wise to not pick fights far above your ability to punch.
I don’t think your definition of lose and the American definition of lose quite align. The American objective is to inflict violence until the annoyance stops. Once the annoyance stops we have won and we leave. Long-Term stability is irrelevant. The cost in human life is irrelevant.
The only relevance is whether or not the American public wants to see more violence doled out.
Oh yes. Let’s all just capitulate to America’s interests. Resistance is futile so we should all just accept American hegemony and their psychotic neoliberal doctrine. Gtfo
Hey you do you man. I’m just telling you it’s probably not going to be very fun to reside in a a place that has pissed off the military industrial complex. I’m not saying it’s proper correct, morally justified or righteous. I’m just stating violence is the language that will be spoken.
I don’t think your definition of lose and the American definition of lose quite align
Lol.
« We didn’t lose in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc actually, we decided to leave because we were bored of this stupid war already, but we would have definitely won if we decided to stay trust me bro »
Literal US defense department cope.
Once the annoyance stops we have won and we leave.
Ha yes, the US totally got what they wanted in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Etc. And that’s why they left.
What exactly do you think is going to happen? I really don’t think you comprehend the absolute ridiculous amount of funding that we divert from everything else into the military industrial complex. American strategic policy is to be able to simultaneously wage four full-blown continent spanning wars at once spread around the globe. I sincerely doubt that a bunch of pissed of Yemenites threaten the American military industrial complex. Yemmen may be a thorn but the US is a lion. Thorns discourage lions they don’t stop them.
Bruh they nearly run out of artillery ammo on a single proxy war. Entire US military is geared towards bombing defenseless countries and siphoning that “ridiculous amount of funding” you said into pockets of war profiteers. US military is exactly the same costeffective as US healthcare.
The US has over 700 bases worldwide. This is for rapid deployment of forces. Those bases are stocked. The issue of supplying Ukraine with artillery munitions isn’t that we don’t have the munitions. It’s that we don’t want to touch our stockpile and we never will as it’s not to be used except in the case of all out war. Since we are not an howitzer based artillery dependant nation, and we are not directly at war with Russia we don’t exactly have much of our logistics pointed to production of those munitions as howitzer based artillery is an antiquated tertiary weapon platform. So we gave away the excess supply we had and now industry is retooling to meet the new orders for artillery production.
And why do you think that is, genius? It’s because America and NATO don’t have the industrial capacity to replenish those shells in time.
Reality doesn’t work like that, there’s no such thing as an army that doesn’t rely on artillery in a land war unless you can get away with having air superiority against a nation that doesn’t have their own air force and air defen… do you see where I’m going with this?
lol you’re a joke!
I’m glad you mentioned that last point about air superiority. Could you do me a favor and remind me which country owns the first largest Air Force? The second largest Air Force, and the third largest Air Force. Oh right that’s the USAF the USAAF and the USN.
I see that irony is not your forte. I’m trying to tell you that the US cannot get away with the “air superiority” tactics they did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc because countries like Russia and China have a lot of air defenses and their own air forces. Do you get it now?
Replying as a second comment. Just so you see this, but this was intended as an edit. Russia can’t defend its own airspace from drone attacks based out of Ukraine. You realize this right? Not saturation attacks, just straight up commercial grade civilian drones 15 to 20 of them launched at a time. Traveling several hundred miles into Russian airspace and detonating on targets… They cannot detect them, let alone defend from them. I would expect China and India to have much better capabilities however.
This is an idiotic argument. Ukraine has one third of all western AD in Europe and it is still unable to fully defend against Russian drones and missiles. Smaller, lower flying targets are harder to detect and hit than big manned jets. They are also more expendable so you can afford to use them more recklessly. Drones are regularly shot down in great numbers or brought down by EW, if this happened to manned aircraft it would be a disaster. If the US tried using its jets against any country with halfway decent AD its pilots who took years and billions of dollars to train would start dying like flies, not to mention aircraft being destroyed that is thousands of times more expensive than a drone, and there would be the mother of all scandals back home. The US has no capacity to absorb real losses, it’s why they only pick on the most defenseless countries and non-state actors.
Do you understand that the reason that the US is having its proxy war in Ukraine is that we get to test all of our equipment for free? So far we are not impressed by the fact that Russia’s top of the line gear is being smacked down by our shit from 1990. While our air defense systems are still operational and dishing out punishment.
The containment strategy against Russia is failed and they decided to fight back, yes
I wouldn’t call throwing EU economies into recession and disarming NATO “free” lol
You live in fantasy land, Ukraine is getting pounded by Russia, abandoned by America and you’re still high off the MSM farts with stories of pensioners downing jets with rifles and Russian generals dying every week
Disarming NATO lol
NATO countries donating outdated equipment and using it as an excuse to buy new toys. Yes totally disarmed.
It’s cost the US 3%of it’s Military budget to have Russian capabilities utterly crippled. And this conflict has encouraged inter-european cooperation and strengthened NATO logistics for minimal year-over-year cost increase. However, as Russia is finding out, Europe does not need Russian energy.
XD this is why they have no ammo because for them the primary weapon are political bribes and drones which are good again weddings, and other tools of terror and “short victorious wars”.
Ah yes, because when we invent a slap chop missile to minimize collateral damage, that’s a bad thing. Obviously it’s less efficient. Obviously it cost 200 times as much as an artillery shell. Clearly the logistically superior tactic is to fire a 120 mm artillery shell into a civilian crowded area and obliterate the entire wedding instead of just one car. Oh right, that’s what you don’t like…
And that’s why it’s prioritized over artillery shell production, this way the MIC gets to launder more money. You’re almost self-aware.
It’s almost like I realize that I live in a for-profit driven country. But again, at the same time is almost like our specialized hyper expensive tools actually get the job done versus praying that the artillery round connects with the right target over the horizon.
If it cost 200 times more for a single missile but you need to fire 200 artillery shells to accomplish the same result. Well, what’s cheaper?. The missile can be fired by one dude. Several thousand miles away sitting on his ass in a cargo container. The towed artillery will require minimum five guns and 10 men per gun.
You need to understand we live in a disposable razor society. We don’t care about straight razor economics.
Shells are way easier to produce than guided missiles, this comparison is asinine. Why are you comparing just the “price” of the two options? Have you also considered that artillery is not just for destroying things but also to deny control of an area or send support fire to a position? Good luck doing that with one fucking missile, I’ll take the 200 shells.
Liberals shouldn’t speak
about things they don’t knowat all, they shouldn’t speak everI love how you think I’m a liberal. I’m not a conservative either. If field artillery was as useful as you claim, then Russia wouldn’t be doing so poorly. There is a reason that we don’t use carpet bombing anymore and moved to precision guided munitions.
It wasn’t the price. It was the effectivity rate.
Bruh US military do doubletap to murder rescuers and actively participates in nearly every genocide sinde WW2.
More like a paper tiger.
I don’t know where you get that the US is « ready to wage 4 continent spanning wars » but last time I checked, most of US wars since ww2 ended up in humiliating defeat against third world countries with barely any Air Force and no way to strike back at America directly.
Nobody takes the American military seriously after Vietnam and Afghanistan. Nobody here thinks Yemenis will be in Washington tomorrow. All we’re saying is this will turn into a quagmire that the US will eventually lose just like Afghanistan or any other war the US has participated in after WW2.
So you agree with my summary that it will be a thorn. One that will be swiftly forgotten once we are no longer standing on it. The US has a monopoly on violence. I’m not saying it’s justified. I’m stating that it’s wise to not pick fights far above your ability to punch.
One you will still lose to.
I don’t think your definition of lose and the American definition of lose quite align. The American objective is to inflict violence until the annoyance stops. Once the annoyance stops we have won and we leave. Long-Term stability is irrelevant. The cost in human life is irrelevant.
The only relevance is whether or not the American public wants to see more violence doled out.
Oh yes. Let’s all just capitulate to America’s interests. Resistance is futile so we should all just accept American hegemony and their psychotic neoliberal doctrine. Gtfo
Hey you do you man. I’m just telling you it’s probably not going to be very fun to reside in a a place that has pissed off the military industrial complex. I’m not saying it’s proper correct, morally justified or righteous. I’m just stating violence is the language that will be spoken.
Lol.
« We didn’t lose in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc actually, we decided to leave because we were bored of this stupid war already, but we would have definitely won if we decided to stay trust me bro »
Literal US defense department cope.
Ha yes, the US totally got what they wanted in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Etc. And that’s why they left.