User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/7/2022 11:20:55 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote Historylol, his laugh is contagious. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2022 11:24:25 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AWMCoalition: Yeah, that's almost 10% of our annual defense budget or 1.6% of out total annual budget to disarm RU. Total waste.  Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AWMCoalition: Originally Posted By Gunslinger808: Well, we’re up to about 90 billion to them now, hardly “chump change”. Yeah, that's almost 10% of our annual defense budget or 1.6% of out total annual budget to disarm RU. Total waste. $90B is just what’s been approved so far. Lots of it hasn’t even been sent yet. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2022 11:27:15 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Veccio: The public pays the price for everything the government does, what's your point? Everything costs money to do. No company making arms makes them for shits & gigs (very few rare cases actually), they make them for profit. This is hardly a new phenomenon. All of the lead up to WW2 and throughout that war; cash & carry, lend-lease, our own rearmament, etc. was paid for by the government (the people) and companies made profit making those items. Is your point that no arms company should make a profit and take on all the risk associated? The US govt and public get their ROI as: 1. large weakening of the US's biggest and longest modern strategic competitor, greater trade with Europe, and new greater allies in the region 2. additional arms and munitions to better deter our other large competitor at a cheaper unit cost due to economies of scale with FMS 3. lower and more stable prices for goods through trade due to greater security and peace via the increased deterrence those arms provided Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Veccio: Originally Posted By Eat_Beef: Originally Posted By Jack67: You seem to make the case aid is a political litmus test, not a rational exercise. ("Ukraine bros ". - " conservative ", " everything is perfect and Holy"). No one at all has said anything is "holy" about it, or flawless and certain in the process. Please don't mischaracterize my or anyone's arguments so grossly. It's not expressly a "liberal" or "conservative" issue. In fact, it's likely the most bi-partisan issue this country has seen since 9/11. Lockmart, Raytheon, etc. can't "prime the pump" because: a) that's not at all what "priming the pump" means in economic terms, by definition. They also b) aren't allowed to conduct their own foreign policy by unilaterally arming who they want, and c) they don't stockpile meaningful levels of compled systems for emergencies - this is uniquely a government function. It's not a liberal or conservative issue as you seem to want to make it - those are simply economic and governmental realities. There is no "snobbery" in pointing out - logically, clearly - some basic economic realities when those arguments are brought up. Nor was there any straw man argument used. Calling it "snobbery" just makes an ad hominem argument instead of contributing to the conversation. I think this thread may seem like an echo chamber to some because it tries to stick to reasoned analysis and not chest thumping or shouting. If your 'go to community college and take an econ class' wasn't economic snobbery, I'm sorry, but that's what it sounds like. You're going through a lot of gymnastics to overlook the fact that the public is paying the price, and the main ROI will be to private outfits. Maybe I've just missed all the headlines about the defense industry offering free weapons to Ukraine, and State turning them down. Again, this is exactly the problem here. Rather than admitting that it sucks to pay for this in taxes and inflation, you try to make it seem like it is a good thing economically. It is not. You can try to make up theoretical situations where it MIGHT pay for itself, but those are longshots, and we all know it. There are MANY things in life that are the right thing to do, but the actual doing of them is costly. I've not found that lying to myself about that fact makes them less costly. Edit to add: I'm not sure where you're getting the political litmus test thing. That's not my intent at all. The US govt and public get their ROI as: 1. large weakening of the US's biggest and longest modern strategic competitor, greater trade with Europe, and new greater allies in the region 2. additional arms and munitions to better deter our other large competitor at a cheaper unit cost due to economies of scale with FMS 3. lower and more stable prices for goods through trade due to greater security and peace via the increased deterrence those arms provided I’m extremely tired, so this may not come out clear… bit… The highest level of military economic strategy is really inputs vs outputs, or what’s imported as money vs exported in real material. Money, especially government money on government procurement, is a nearly closed loop cycle that simply redistributes wealth to Americans in all income strata and makes it’s way back to the treasury. The tax money spent on a shell for example is effectively paying multiple Americans for labor, and raw materials. That money gets paid out to machinists, chemists, miners, plant workers, drivers, managers, IT guys, QA guys, inspectors, .. the list goes on and on in the supply chain. All of those people ironically pay taxes out of that, lowering the actual labor costs. The money cycles through the system through taxation until all of that labor is effectively free, through the cycles of taxation as money changes hands at every step of the process back to the government, staying in the US. When that shell is stored or used, it’s real value is simply raw materials. So, on paper, a 155mm shell is $10,000. In reality, it’s only a few dollars in raw materials. The cool thing is, if we sell that shell for $10,000 to another country, that is money coming directly into the US economy, and what is going out is really still the raw materials in that shell. The ROI is absolutely insane for the country. Even more for complex equipment like tanks and planes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2022 11:28:20 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lightning_P38: As for the "good stuff" it is also a value for us, you can do all of the research you want at Aberdeen and White Sands, but pitting the machines against the gear it is intended to be used against is the best R and D there is, and normally costs American blood. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lightning_P38: Originally Posted By mercersfinest4: As has been covered in this thread many times already, we are getting our money's worth and more. The contributors to this thread explain it to a new bunch of guys every couple of weeks and then we get a new batch coming through and asking the same questions. And not just that but fielded in real battlefield conditions in the hands of real grunts being grunts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2022 11:30:41 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: Not saying it is, but come on, be at least honest about it. Some of you all are so wrapped up in this conflict that you have decided to turn a blind eye to how much has actually been spent. According to your very own graphs that’s 12% of our defense budget and still climbing. And it’s not just old antiquated systems we’re sending them, they’re getting some cutting edge equipment that we might just have a need for in a future conflict that’s being depleted as well. As some of you have mentioned, if we as in NATO gets drug into this as more than a proxy opponent, we may find ourselves in short supply. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: Originally Posted By AWMCoalition: Yeah, that's almost 10% of our annual defense budget or 1.6% of out total annual budget to disarm RU. Total waste. Not saying it is, but come on, be at least honest about it. Some of you all are so wrapped up in this conflict that you have decided to turn a blind eye to how much has actually been spent. According to your very own graphs that’s 12% of our defense budget and still climbing. And it’s not just old antiquated systems we’re sending them, they’re getting some cutting edge equipment that we might just have a need for in a future conflict that’s being depleted as well. As some of you have mentioned, if we as in NATO gets drug into this as more than a proxy opponent, we may find ourselves in short supply. It’s a mix of materials produced over the last 50 years. So, 90bln out of a combined 50 years of our defense budget. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2022 11:32:43 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By kncook: $90B is just what's been approved so far. Lots of it hasn't even been sent yet. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2022 11:41:12 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: Not saying it is, but come on, be at least honest about it. Some of you all are so wrapped up in this conflict that you have decided to turn a blind eye to how much has actually been spent. According to your very own graphs that's 12% of our defense budget and still climbing. And it's not just old antiquated systems we're sending them, they're getting some cutting edge equipment that we might just have a need for in a future conflict that's being depleted as well. As some of you have mentioned, if we as in NATO gets drug into this as more than a proxy opponent, we may find ourselves in short supply. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: Originally Posted By AWMCoalition: Yeah, that's almost 10% of our annual defense budget or 1.6% of out total annual budget to disarm RU. Total waste. Not saying it is, but come on, be at least honest about it. Some of you all are so wrapped up in this conflict that you have decided to turn a blind eye to how much has actually been spent. According to your very own graphs that's 12% of our defense budget and still climbing. And it's not just old antiquated systems we're sending them, they're getting some cutting edge equipment that we might just have a need for in a future conflict that's being depleted as well. As some of you have mentioned, if we as in NATO gets drug into this as more than a proxy opponent, we may find ourselves in short supply. There's also a big difference between purchased and actually delivered Most of the time these spending discussions come up, a substantial number of people don't know how much and what form of assistance has/is being sent. Some really do think we have given Ukraine 90 billion in cash on pallets. I'm not saying that's you just pointing out that the issue has a lot of differing levels of understanding by the participants. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2022 11:45:15 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Fallen: I took it as three fresh brigades replaced other units who had been “unwound” by artillery. Another version: three fresh UA brigades were able to take RU positions previously “unwound” by artillery. It's ridiculous. It's only fifteen words and it's impossible to tell what he had in mind. His Russian teacher should be tried for crimes against humanity. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2022 11:51:36 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MelGibsonEnthusiast: Question for those whose knowledge about armored vehicles extends beyond the internet: How useful will the M1117s be for Ukraine? They'll obviously be better than technicals as battlefield taxis, and I think they'll be more useful than M113s, but how do they compare to vehicles like the Stryker and the Bradley? Not even in the same category as a Stryker or Bradley. The 1117 is an ASV, Armored Security Vehicle, made for MPs to pull security while being better protected from small-arms and IEDs than what a HMMWV can provide. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 12:01:49 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: Not saying it is, but come on, be at least honest about it. Some of you all are so wrapped up in this conflict that you have decided to turn a blind eye to how much has actually been spent. According to your very own graphs that’s 12% of our defense budget and still climbing. And it’s not just old antiquated systems we’re sending them, they’re getting some cutting edge equipment that we might just have a need for in a future conflict that’s being depleted as well. As some of you have mentioned, if we as in NATO gets drug into this as more than a proxy opponent, we may find ourselves in short supply. We would own the skies and the russians. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 12:05:41 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sq40: Leave it to Lorazepam to sum everything up perfectly, succinctly, and without bullshit. As always.  
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 12:05:44 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jack67: If you go down the list of naval assets sent, which I have done by line item, it’s retired stuff, superfluous patrol boats, UUVs that were cancelled. It is all listed as being worth retail and acquisition costs. Please show one item where we are jeopardizing readiness in any meaningful way. It’s one thing to talk about it, but please show one concrete example from real analysis. I’m open to being persuaded - as everyone here is. CNN article from November 17 Similar WSJ article from August This one mentions Javelins and HIMARS |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 12:07:52 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By m35ben: Its a security vehicle so I don't know what all it will be used for. I won't really guess since I have had to eat a ton of crow after seeing how the humvees have been used. Fricking rat patrol. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 12:09:15 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: Not saying it is, but come on, be at least honest about it. Some of you all are so wrapped up in this conflict that you have decided to turn a blind eye to how much has actually been spent. According to your very own graphs that’s 12% of our defense budget and still climbing. And it’s not just old antiquated systems we’re sending them, they’re getting some cutting edge equipment that we might just have a need for in a future conflict that’s being depleted as well. As some of you have mentioned, if we as in NATO gets drug into this as more than a proxy opponent, we may find ourselves in short supply. And worth EVERY penny. In fact we should be spending more. |
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 12:09:32 AM EDT
[#15]
Lots of extraneous chatter about how much US is spending, is it affordable, etc. Nuts to all that. What's happening around Bakhmut?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 12:13:33 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Veccio: There's a big difference between allocated and spent There's also a big difference between purchased and actually delivered Most of the time these spending discussions come up, a substantial number of people don't know how much and what form of assistance has/is being sent. Some really do think we have given Ukraine 90 billion in cash on pallets. I'm not saying that's you just pointing out that the issue has a lot of differing levels of understanding by the participants. That is a huge issue. Sad part is they don't want to know. |
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 12:33:56 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By doc540: point of impact in the concrete wall just to the left rear of the car? appears they heard something coming and reacted in two different ways neither of which made any difference https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/183309/ukraine_woman1-2627666.jpg She won't park in the handicap spot again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 12:37:06 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By QUACK32: She won't park in the handicap spot again. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By QUACK32: Originally Posted By doc540: point of impact in the concrete wall just to the left rear of the car? appears they heard something coming and reacted in two different ways neither of which made any difference https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/183309/ukraine_woman1-2627666.jpg She won't park in the handicap spot again. Can the Ukrainians adapt this technology to left lane campers and semis that violate lane restrictions?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 12:40:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: AROKIE]
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: CNN article from November 17 Similar WSJ article from August This one mentions Javelins and HIMARS Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: Originally Posted By Jack67: If you go down the list of naval assets sent, which I have done by line item, it’s retired stuff, superfluous patrol boats, UUVs that were cancelled. It is all listed as being worth retail and acquisition costs. Please show one item where we are jeopardizing readiness in any meaningful way. It’s one thing to talk about it, but please show one concrete example from real analysis. I’m open to being persuaded - as everyone here is. CNN article from November 17 Similar WSJ article from August This one mentions Javelins and HIMARS @Gunslinger808 quoted from the CNN article you posted..pretty much defeats what you are saying. Do you read the articles you even post? "Defense officials say the crunch is not affecting US readiness, as the weapons sent to Ukraine don’t come out of what the US keeps for its own contingencies." " The US would never put at risk its own readiness, and every shipment is measured against its impact on US strategic reserves and war plans. Both Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley monitor levels of US stockpiles closely, officials said." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 1:34:02 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CenterMass762: Not even in the same category as a Stryker or Bradley. The 1117 is an ASV, Armored Security Vehicle, made for MPs to pull security while being better protected from small-arms and IEDs than what a HMMWV can provide. I would guess they will get sent to units in the north so that BMPs can be flexed South. I am not a fan of the ASV for multiple reasons, it does have decent firepower for a vehicle its size, but it’s a pain to reload quickly either gun. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 1:41:48 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Alex9661: Here "unwound" means huge casualties, almost destroyed. I'm pretty sure he's trying to say 3 fresh UA brigades got hit by RU arty but his Russian is awful. Interesting, thanks. That’s good to know. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 2:04:35 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MelGibsonEnthusiast: Question for those whose knowledge about armored vehicles extends beyond the internet: How useful will the M1117s be for Ukraine? They'll obviously be better than technicals as battlefield taxis, and I think they'll be more useful than M113s, but how do they compare to vehicles like the Stryker and the Bradley? Depends on how they are used. Likely, in an overall role, they will not be as useful as an M-113, as despite it's age, a 113 is very versatile, can carry more troops, has superior cross-country mobility, and can carry more cargo, etc. If used correctly in niche roles, such as route security, overwatch on checkpoints, QRF for a large base, or certain urban scenarios, the 1117 would be superior in most cases to the 113. Provided the Ukes employ them within their capabilities, the M1117 will do well. |
|
|
AB, CAN
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 2:05:02 AM EDT
[#23]
I imagine the Poles will have some more surplus hardware in the near future.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 2:10:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Prime]
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Lots of extraneous chatter about how much US is spending, is it affordable, etc. Nuts to all that. What's happening around Bakhmut? Well, manpower problems for one https://espreso.tv/genshtab-pid-chas-perevezennya-pidrozdilu-zagarbnitskikh-viysk-na-okupovaniy-donechchini-vtekli-blizko-20-soldativ 
More of the usual…
  
Ukraine seems to be pushing trauma care as far forward as they can, which is great for casualties, and awful for providers. Hopefully they’re rotating them like they seem to be rotating troops.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 2:21:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Prime]
[#25]
American volunteer.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 2:45:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Gunslinger808]
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AROKIE: @Gunslinger808 quoted from the CNN article you posted..pretty much defeats what you are saying. Do you read the articles you even post? "Defense officials say the crunch is not affecting US readiness, as the weapons sent to Ukraine don’t come out of what the US keeps for its own contingencies." " The US would never put at risk its own readiness, and every shipment is measured against its impact on US strategic reserves and war plans. Both Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley monitor levels of US stockpiles closely, officials said." Exactly what I’m talking about, you pick one paragraph out of three articles I randomly selected that state our reserves can’t handle continuing to supply the Ukraine at the current levels we are. I really think that emotions are overriding the fact that we cannot continue to fund either monetarily or equipment wise as we have been, and there is a need to look after our own security first and foremost. I’m not opposed to feeding my hungry neighbors, but not at the cost of starving my family. ETA… By all means, sending them out dated and shelved systems and equipment is fine and has proven to be more than a match for what the idiot orcs have, but top of the line items that they are running through like a drunk in a wine shop needs to at the least be slowed. Many of the latest videos I see have them using precision guided munitions to take out minimally important targets that could be done with more conventional means. They are milking us dry seemingly more out of convenience than need. And that brings up another point, look how quickly they are going through what they have in a war against an enemy that at the best is inept, and at the worse suicidal shows how our production can’t keep up with basic needs. How would we fair if we get into a situation in Korea or Taiwan where we need those munitions against a much larger force? To think that a war against China will be nothing more than a naval battle seems short sighted. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 2:48:54 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Saltwater-Hillbilly: Depends on how they are used. Likely, in an overall role, they will not be as useful as an M-113, as despite it's age, a 113 is very versatile, can carry more troops, has superior cross-country mobility, and can carry more cargo, etc. If used correctly in niche roles, such as route security, overwatch on checkpoints, QRF for a large base, or certain urban scenarios, the 1117 would be superior in most cases to the 113. Provided the Ukes employ them within their capabilities, the M1117 will do well. This is such a good point, so kudos for that. I don't have direct experience, but the US supplied them to the Afghan commandos (and I think also Iraqi national police)? They are best suited to fill a role like the V100 Commando from the Vietnam era, so route security and reconnaissance missions over moderate terrain. I don't have any idea about their ease of use or maintenance, but I have heard that they are better than UAH for mine/IED resistance, but not quite as good as MRAPs. And surprise surprise, since they weigh about in between a UAH and an MRAP, you would expect about that kind of performance. Some things you can just tell by the way they look. Having a dual Mk19 and 50cal in a turret is good; but do they have a reliable supply of ammo and enough know-how to maintain those (new to them) weapons? The dismount ratio is a little more favorable than the UAH (on paper, 3 crew and 5 dismounts), but does that work in practice? Dudes wear and carry a lot of shit in winter time. Now...I was shocked to see the Ukrainians basically bum-rush occupied villages with UAH, so I am pretty worried that they will try to misuse the ASVs too, but...the Russians suck so bad that they *might* be able to get away with it. That isn't any way to plan or conduct missions if you want to live very long though. Bottom line, we probably have a lot of ASVs in storage, and whatever their faults, they beat the hell out of soft skin SUVs and fucking minivans that we have seen before. I am sure the Ukrainians are smart enough to figure out what works best for them. This is one of the fucking weird themes I feel like I have heard from critics of aid to Ukraine: like the Ukrainians would just drive a vehicle or burn up ammo "because it was free"?? No dude, I don't think any sane human being drives even a "free" vehicle towards certain death, or tries to draw fire toward themselves with "free" ammo...because I'm pretty sure people tend to want to live. Maybe the Russians do that, but what a weird critique.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 2:55:09 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime: Well, manpower problems for one https://espreso.tv/genshtab-pid-chas-perevezennya-pidrozdilu-zagarbnitskikh-viysk-na-okupovaniy-donechchini-vtekli-blizko-20-soldativ https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/203719/60F96ADB-21E0-4061-A1AC-F80A55411BE6-2627877.jpg
That's FUCKING METAL.  More of the usual…
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjZ89RtXEAsvY_j?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjaBKSnWIAkS3k6?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjZ89S-XEAo4ebW?format=jpg&name=medium
Ukraine seems to be pushing trauma care as far forward as they can, which is great for casualties, and awful for providers. Hopefully they’re rotating them like they seem to be rotating troops.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjXL_2EXwAAIs9h?format=jpg&name=small
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fjb12dlVsAEwcxJ?format=jpg&name=medium |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 3:22:19 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Eat_Beef: I already did, in my first post about it on page 3129. Since then many have come in saying it will end up paying back more than it costs. Here is the original comment: Worth giving them away to demonstrate real world battlefield effectiveness to potential buyers. To say nothing of the lessons being gained for our own use. Again, you've all proven my point about this echo chamber, anyone who doesn't agree that everything is great is mobbed, without regard to what is true or logical. Go ahead, flame me, I'm going back to lurking, and you all can go back to slapping one another on the back and pretending there aren't costs associated with our support of Ukraine. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Eat_Beef: Originally Posted By Easterner: Quote who said it won't cost anything. Many did say there are benefits besides the moral side of stepping up.  I already did, in my first post about it on page 3129. Since then many have come in saying it will end up paying back more than it costs. Here is the original comment: Worth giving them away to demonstrate real world battlefield effectiveness to potential buyers. To say nothing of the lessons being gained for our own use. Again, you've all proven my point about this echo chamber, anyone who doesn't agree that everything is great is mobbed, without regard to what is true or logical. Go ahead, flame me, I'm going back to lurking, and you all can go back to slapping one another on the back and pretending there aren't costs associated with our support of Ukraine. People are arguing against you reasonably and you are trying to dismiss legit arguments as an echo chamber, hostility, falsities, and other ad hominem. Maybe you're having a bad day or haven't thought things through, IDK, but don't hide behind that echo chamber bullshit. Accept that people disagree with you and agree to disagree gracefully or present some arguments not laced with ad hominems and strawmen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 3:32:37 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: Exactly what I’m talking about, you pick one paragraph out of three articles I randomly selected that state our reserves can’t handle continuing to supply the Ukraine at the current levels we are. I really think that emotions are overriding the fact that we cannot continue to fund either monetarily or equipment wise as we have been, and there is a need to look after our own security first and foremost. I’m not opposed to feeding my hungry neighbors, but not at the cost of starving my family. Here’s where this argument starts to sound inconsistent to me, and how it could be made more persuasive. Who are you afraid of? On the one hand, we have R0N who by all appearances should be a well respected (if not entirely trusted by some) SME telling us that we overprepared for Russia to the degree that there had to be some malfeasance on the part of the IC, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. On the other hand we’re told we’re depleting critical stores of stuff. The artillery I can believe, and that’s being fixed. Maybe not fast enough for a retired program guy who spent a career preparing for a ground war against the USSR. But that’s not the world we’re in right now. If we need to be prepared for one and a half major conflicts simultaneously, who else is there? China? Are they going to go full ground war anywhere against the rest of the free world? With Pakistan and the Norks? Maybe in another decade after they’ve inventoried and exercised everything they’ve got to make sure it won’t perform like Russia’s has in Ukraine. China is a competent Russia, they’re not particularly liked anywhere that matters, mostly just tolerated. They’re that rich kid in high school who’s a dick to everybody. Their list of real wartime allies is not impressive. Guess I’m just not seeing the grave peril. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 3:37:44 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: You are welcome to do so if interested, as stated before, other's can cover this much better and in greater detail, it was 6.27 trillion for 2022. Found a break down here: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/#:~:text=In%20fiscal%20year%20 Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Originally Posted By Spade: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Originally Posted By Gunslinger808: Well, we're up to about 90 billion to them now, hardly "chump change". https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/presidents_fy_2022_discretionary-logo_large.png This is last years. https://static.nationalpriorities.org/images/charts/2021-charts/discretionary-desk.png You gotta post the whole budget, not just the discretionary piece. You are welcome to do so if interested, as stated before, other's can cover this much better and in greater detail, it was 6.27 trillion for 2022. Found a break down here: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/#:~:text=In%20fiscal%20year%20 So it's probably something like someone who makes $80k a year going out and buying a new iphone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 3:55:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Jack67]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: Exactly what I’m talking about, you pick one paragraph out of three articles I randomly selected that state our reserves can’t handle continuing to supply the Ukraine at the current levels we are. I really think that emotions are overriding the fact that we cannot continue to fund either monetarily or equipment wise as we have been, and there is a need to look after our own security first and foremost. I’m not opposed to feeding my hungry neighbors, but not at the cost of starving my family. If that isn’t a relevant quote that he used to summarize it, what is? Please tell us where the vulnerabilities lie so we can all know. Examples we can find and discard: - Stingers taken out of active inventory years ago, not scheduled for replacement as vastly more capable versions and other shorad systems are already deployed. - HARM missiles that EXPIRED 25 years ago, which would have been demil’d or maybe shot as practice rounds. - Vietnam era M113s that were going to be melted down or used as artificial reefs. - Eight weeks and three day’s worth of HIMARS slow-rate production. - UUVs that have already been retired, coast guard coastal boats not used for national defense. - Two last-generation NASAMS batteries (eight launchers) while we upgrade to 3rd gen. - Purchases of S-300 units,Mi-8s, T-72s we would never ever-use, transferred from 3rd parties. What exactly is it that is jeopardizing our readiness? Ammunition for systems is being increased in production, and the burden widely shared with allies. If there is a serious readiness issue, I haven’t been able to find it, and I’ve both looked and asked. If there’s a vulnerability, let’s identify it and weigh it. Lastly, it’s worth noting a lot of these systems are stockpiled explicitly for use against Russia. If Ukraine attrits a significant part of Russian armoured forces (done), air force (in progress), or missile systems (done), we literally don’t need as many. At a certain exchange ratio, we and NATO actually come out relatively stronger for the rather minor system, ammo, and cash expenditure. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 3:55:24 AM EDT
[#33]
Light day. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 4:30:47 AM EDT
[#34]
What exactly is it that is jeopardizing our readiness? Ammunition for systems is being increased in production, and the burden widely shared with allies. That was in part one of my arguments against those that were saying it was really costing us next to nothing to arm the Ukraine. People are fond of saying that we are not spending money while in fact we have to replenish stocks we’ve given up to them. What exactly is it that is jeopardizing our readiness? In all of the news sources quoting officials that I linked to several things that are current production and in current use are cited. 155 rounds, Javelins (which now seem to be in short supply in the Ukraine), and replenishment of HIMARS which is a slow roll even if full war footing is implemented. And what ever happened to all those Switchblades and other loiter munitions? I’ve shown you repeatedly what’s in short supply, it’s not a secret and the info is out there. China? Are they going to go full ground war anywhere against the rest of the free world? Yes China, and by extension it’s proxy allies such as North Korea, as I said earlier, for China to expand its sphere of influence and hold it is going to take more than naval battles, it’s going to take ground forces to hold any gains they hope to keep either in Taiwan or South Korea or for that matter should they go after Australia. And that means ground war which means artillery, and other land based weapons systems. And last, just the munitions being used in the Ukraine keep adding up, and will continue to do so outpacing production. This war is going to continue for a long time, short of WMD use, this is going to remain an ongoing conflict possibly for years. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 4:37:26 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: Exactly what I’m talking about, you pick one paragraph out of three articles I randomly selected that state our reserves can’t handle continuing to supply the Ukraine at the current levels we are. I really think that emotions are overriding the fact that we cannot continue to fund either monetarily or equipment wise as we have been, and there is a need to look after our own security first and foremost. I’m not opposed to feeding my hungry neighbors, but not at the cost of starving my family. ETA… By all means, sending them out dated and shelved systems and equipment is fine and has proven to be more than a match for what the idiot orcs have, but top of the line items that they are running through like a drunk in a wine shop needs to at the least be slowed. Many of the latest videos I see have them using precision guided munitions to take out minimally important targets that could be done with more conventional means. They are milking us dry seemingly more out of convenience than need. And that brings up another point, look how quickly they are going through what they have in a war against an enemy that at the best is inept, and at the worse suicidal shows how our production can’t keep up with basic needs. How would we fair if we get into a situation in Korea or Taiwan where we need those munitions against a much larger force? To think that a war against China will be nothing more than a naval battle seems short sighted. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: Originally Posted By AROKIE: @Gunslinger808 quoted from the CNN article you posted..pretty much defeats what you are saying. Do you read the articles you even post? "Defense officials say the crunch is not affecting US readiness, as the weapons sent to Ukraine don’t come out of what the US keeps for its own contingencies." " The US would never put at risk its own readiness, and every shipment is measured against its impact on US strategic reserves and war plans. Both Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley monitor levels of US stockpiles closely, officials said." Exactly what I’m talking about, you pick one paragraph out of three articles I randomly selected that state our reserves can’t handle continuing to supply the Ukraine at the current levels we are. I really think that emotions are overriding the fact that we cannot continue to fund either monetarily or equipment wise as we have been, and there is a need to look after our own security first and foremost. I’m not opposed to feeding my hungry neighbors, but not at the cost of starving my family. ETA… By all means, sending them out dated and shelved systems and equipment is fine and has proven to be more than a match for what the idiot orcs have, but top of the line items that they are running through like a drunk in a wine shop needs to at the least be slowed. Many of the latest videos I see have them using precision guided munitions to take out minimally important targets that could be done with more conventional means. They are milking us dry seemingly more out of convenience than need. And that brings up another point, look how quickly they are going through what they have in a war against an enemy that at the best is inept, and at the worse suicidal shows how our production can’t keep up with basic needs. How would we fair if we get into a situation in Korea or Taiwan where we need those munitions against a much larger force? To think that a war against China will be nothing more than a naval battle seems short sighted. lol, you keep accusing everyone of being blind due to emotions. there are no emotions in facts. there are no emotions, idk why you keep saying that? anyways did you read any of that I posted in BOLD. the part were helping Ukraine DOES NOT affect our readiness? and the part were both top Military figures said, that the US would never put at risk or readiness?? What part of that are you confused about, because you are not getting it. It is not hurting our ability to confront any future enemy by helping Ukraine. You may think you are smarter than the leading military figures doing the math and understanding what it takes, but sir you are not. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 4:42:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Jack67]
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime:
Looks like an oil fire; maybe another tank farm hit like at Kursk airport. Which makes me wonder: Are the Ukrainians consciously trolling the Russians in their targeting? Yakovlevo is not well known in the west, but it’s an important point on the overall Kursk battlefield. Even today tour groups go through it and there’s a memorial there.** But it’s not a vital military target right now. - Belgorod is not an active front, nor do we think it’s being turned into one. - This encompasses the general area north of Kharkiv, which is the critical heart of the historic Kursk battlefield. - Kursk is hit with a big, visible oil fire 12/6. - Yakovlevo is hit with a big, visible oil fire on 12/8. These aren’t resources being fed to Luhansk or Donetsk. Possibly, following on the strikes on Engels, Dyagilevo - they are trying to make small but highly visible targets out of things that will resonate in the Russian mind. So if they also hit visible targets in places like Ponyri, Prokhorovka, Belgorod itself, the message will be clear. ;) Here’s your typical Kursk battlefield tour bus list, let’s see how many more locations are targetted the next week: http://stalingradtours.com/en/tours/articul/kursk_tank_battlefield_tour ** It was the southern hinge of the Oboyan-Yakovlevo line, where the 2nd SS Panzer Corps advanced on Prokhorovka and was smashed - the climactic event of the overall Kursk offensive. The 5th Guards Tank Army also used it as a major objective when pushing the 2nd SS Corp out of the southern penetration of the Kursk salient. All Russian school kids are still taught these place names and events. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 4:44:08 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jack67: Looks like an oil fire; maybe another tank farm hit like at Kursk airport. Which makes me wonder: Are the Ukrainians consciously trolling the Russians in their targeting? Yakovlevo is not well known in the west, but it’s an important point on the overall Kursk battlefield. Even today tour groups go through it and there’s a memorial there.** But it’s not a vital military target right now. - Belgorod is not an active front, nor do we think it’s being turned into one. This encompasses the general area north of Kharkiv. - Kursk is hit with a big, visible oil fire 12/6. - Yakovlevo is hit with a big, visible oil fire on 12/8. These aren’t resources being fed to Luhansk or Donetsk. Possibly, following on the strikes on Engels, Dyagilevo - they are trying to make small but highly visible targets out of things that will resonate in the Russian mind. So if they also hit visible targets in places like Ponyri, Prokhorovka, Belgorod itself, the message will be clear. ;) Here’s your typical Kursk battlefield tour bus list, let’s see how many more locations are targetted the next week: http://stalingradtours.com/en/tours/articul/kursk_tank_battlefield_tour ** It was the southern hinge of the Oboyan-Yakovlevo line, where the 2nd SS Panzer Corps advanced on Prokhorovka and was smashed - the climactic event of the overall Kursk offensive. The 5th Guards Tank Army also used it as a major objective when pushing the 2nd SS Corp out of the southern penetration of the Kursk salient. All Russian school kids are still taught these place names and events. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jack67: Originally Posted By Prime:
Looks like an oil fire; maybe another tank farm hit like at Kursk airport. Which makes me wonder: Are the Ukrainians consciously trolling the Russians in their targeting? Yakovlevo is not well known in the west, but it’s an important point on the overall Kursk battlefield. Even today tour groups go through it and there’s a memorial there.** But it’s not a vital military target right now. - Belgorod is not an active front, nor do we think it’s being turned into one. This encompasses the general area north of Kharkiv. - Kursk is hit with a big, visible oil fire 12/6. - Yakovlevo is hit with a big, visible oil fire on 12/8. These aren’t resources being fed to Luhansk or Donetsk. Possibly, following on the strikes on Engels, Dyagilevo - they are trying to make small but highly visible targets out of things that will resonate in the Russian mind. So if they also hit visible targets in places like Ponyri, Prokhorovka, Belgorod itself, the message will be clear. ;) Here’s your typical Kursk battlefield tour bus list, let’s see how many more locations are targetted the next week: http://stalingradtours.com/en/tours/articul/kursk_tank_battlefield_tour ** It was the southern hinge of the Oboyan-Yakovlevo line, where the 2nd SS Panzer Corps advanced on Prokhorovka and was smashed - the climactic event of the overall Kursk offensive. The 5th Guards Tank Army also used it as a major objective when pushing the 2nd SS Corp out of the southern penetration of the Kursk salient. All Russian school kids are still taught these place names and events. what ever Ukraine is doing is sure to be making Putin mad as hell, lol and I hope he is! keep destroying the fuel and that will hurt them this winter |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 4:50:54 AM EDT
[#38]
lol, you keep accusing everyone of being blind due to emotions. there are no emotions in facts. there are no emotions, idk why you keep saying that Do I really need to go back and find quotes from some of you that have championed the ideas of everything from the USA doing direct strikes by our military and aviation to using preemptive tactical nukes? Yeah, emotions are high and some of you are really off the wall on it. I’ve watched and read this thread since the beginning, and some of the emotional investment shown has in a few cases reached peak frothing. I can understand those with ties to and living in the Ukraine, but some of the sideline cheerleading has really gotten out of hand. A few of you attack anyone that dares disagree in the slightest with full on unlimited support for the Ukraine including running off several SMEs that dared disagree up to and including getting the banned from this thread. Smooth brains, Putin puffers, Russian bots, and all sorts of other personal attacks just because they didn’t subscribe to your particular opinions. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 4:53:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Jack67]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: In all of the news sources quoting officials that I linked to several things that are current production and in current use are cited. 155 rounds, Javelins (which now seem to be in short supply in the Ukraine), and replenishment of HIMARS which is a slow roll even if full war footing is implemented. And what ever happened to all those Switchblades and other loiter munitions? I’ve shown you repeatedly what’s in short supply, it’s not a secret and the info is out there. Ok, what are the numbers? Are they really significant? - Lots of people produce 155 rounds, not rare - and France, UK, SKr, US are ramping up multiple production lines. Ukroboronprom* opened a new line domestically just the last few weeks for 122 and 152 production, reducing foreign reliance. Is there a crisis? - If Javelins are short in Ukr, does that mean they are short in 8th Army, the only place we really need them outside of Europe? And if they are short in Ukr, are they short in Poland, Romania, and in NATO in general? - IDK, what about Swithblades? Is this a problem? It’s not a mission critical weapon like a healthy 155 supply. I don’t see a global readiness crisis to the point we should back off and let Russia roll over Ukraine. I am not saying you are wrong to question this - but it’s not an issue. If you are getting fed media that is telling you that, dig into why they are saying that. Everything seems to be working as designed. The key elements of the Russian army have been engaged, and destroyed. Second and third tier formations are now being ground to powder without any major stresses. And it’s all being done through an alliance with a non-NATO member, complicating logistics and supply. All-in-all, this looks like one of the greatest triumphs of military-industrial supply and cooperation in history, when you start to break it down. * wrong link - wait a moment - here it is: https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukroboronprom-presents-152-mm-ammunition-now-to-be-produced-in-ukraine/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 5:10:13 AM EDT
[#40]
Lots of people produce 155 rounds, not rare - and France, UK, SKr, US are ramping up multiple production lines. OK, let’s look specifically at 155 rounds, so far the USA has provided over 800,000 to the Ukraine according to various sources, and those numbers are from August. That means we need to replenish our stocks, and that’s not including the thousands guided munitions also sent at that time. Where does the money to do that come from? If we get into a major conflict will those countries you mentioned supply us in our shortages, or will they be facing their own shortage issues? This is a wet dream for countries like China, they’re watching one of their greatest rivals get decimated, and watching another deplete it’s war fighting reserves only to have to try and ramp up production, it’s a win all the way around for them without having to fire a shot. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 5:20:14 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: Not saying it is, but come on, be at least honest about it. Some of you all are so wrapped up in this conflict that you have decided to turn a blind eye to how much has actually been spent. According to your very own graphs that's 12% of our defense budget and still climbing. And it's not just old antiquated systems we're sending them, they're getting some cutting edge equipment that we might just have a need for in a future conflict that's being depleted as well. As some of you have mentioned, if we as in NATO gets drug into this as more than a proxy opponent, we may find ourselves in short supply. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 5:37:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: AROKIE]
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: Do I really need to go back and find quotes from some of you that have championed the ideas of everything from the USA doing direct strikes by our military and aviation to using preemptive tactical nukes? Yeah, emotions are high and some of you are really off the wall on it. I’ve watched and read this thread since the beginning, and some of the emotional investment shown has in a few cases reached peak frothing. I can understand those with ties to and living in the Ukraine, but some of the sideline cheerleading has really gotten out of hand. A few of you attack anyone that dares disagree in the slightest with full on unlimited support for the Ukraine including running off several SMEs that dared disagree up to and including getting the banned from this thread. Smooth brains, Putin puffers, Russian bots, and all sorts of other personal attacks just because they didn’t subscribe to your particular opinions. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: lol, you keep accusing everyone of being blind due to emotions. there are no emotions in facts. there are no emotions, idk why you keep saying that Do I really need to go back and find quotes from some of you that have championed the ideas of everything from the USA doing direct strikes by our military and aviation to using preemptive tactical nukes? Yeah, emotions are high and some of you are really off the wall on it. I’ve watched and read this thread since the beginning, and some of the emotional investment shown has in a few cases reached peak frothing. I can understand those with ties to and living in the Ukraine, but some of the sideline cheerleading has really gotten out of hand. A few of you attack anyone that dares disagree in the slightest with full on unlimited support for the Ukraine including running off several SMEs that dared disagree up to and including getting the banned from this thread. Smooth brains, Putin puffers, Russian bots, and all sorts of other personal attacks just because they didn’t subscribe to your particular opinions. LOL, now you are just echoing the GD.. I know you have seen the attacks on anyone who supports Ukraine, the whole Ukrainebros bs in GD is hillarious... doesnt bother anyone in here at all but the frothing at the mouth is the clowns who are against anyone who supports helping Ukraine. dont try and turn it around on us in here, we are not out there screeching and crying about anyone thats against helping Ukraine. this thread is about the progress of the conflict and always has been, the ones who come in here and get banned are not following that. they go off on conspiracys, nazis and biplabs and 10 percent for the big guy and all the other bullshit they hear. This isnt the thread for that. Its not the members who contribute to this thread banning folks. seems like you are the one whos quite aggravated and emotional because alot here are not subscribing to your beliefs. People can disagree all day long, just most flip out when confronted with facts that goes against what they think and start name calling, or being "emotional"..  But everyone has there own opinion of this war, no need to attack anyone for having it.but anyways, this isnt the thread to have to explain that to you. lets get back to the progress of the conflict |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 5:55:09 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: OK, let’s look specifically at 155 rounds, so far the USA has provided over 800,000 to the Ukraine according to various sources, and those numbers are from August. That means we need to replenish our stocks, and that’s not including the thousands guided munitions also sent at that time. Where does the money to do that come from? If we get into a major conflict will those countries you mentioned supply us in our shortages, or will they be facing their own shortage issues? This is a wet dream for countries like China, they’re watching one of their greatest rivals get decimated, and watching another deplete it’s war fighting reserves only to have to try and ramp up production, it’s a win all the way around for them without having to fire a shot. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: Lots of people produce 155 rounds, not rare - and France, UK, SKr, US are ramping up multiple production lines. OK, let’s look specifically at 155 rounds, so far the USA has provided over 800,000 to the Ukraine according to various sources, and those numbers are from August. That means we need to replenish our stocks, and that’s not including the thousands guided munitions also sent at that time. Where does the money to do that come from? If we get into a major conflict will those countries you mentioned supply us in our shortages, or will they be facing their own shortage issues? This is a wet dream for countries like China, they’re watching one of their greatest rivals get decimated, and watching another deplete it’s war fighting reserves only to have to try and ramp up production, it’s a win all the way around for them without having to fire a shot. What's the alternative? Leaving Ukraine alone fighting Russia? A stronger Russia and a stronger China? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 5:58:45 AM EDT
[#44]
If we hadn’t supplied Ukraine we wouldn’t have see. How deficient we are in munitions and we wouldn’t be taking it seriously. We will come out if this stronger than before.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 6:09:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Jack67]
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: OK, let’s look specifically at 155 rounds, so far the USA has provided over 800,000 to the Ukraine according to various sources, and those numbers are from August. US production capacity is already being ramped from 14k/month to 40k/month. US alone, not counting the 20 other countries that produce it. Not a problem. But more important - is an 800,000 short-term round reduction a crisis? What % of stocks is that? What % of a projected Korean peninsula conflict? Which is our only real non-elective potential conflict now. That means we need to replenish our stocks, and that’s not including the thousands guided munitions also sent at that time. Where does the money to do that come from? We could stop voluntarily paying interest on recent graduate’s student loans, as pointed out by someone else. And then have $$ to spare. It’s chickenfeed in the federal budget. It’s actually quite possibly less; we probably spend more on subsidizing genuine chicken feed in ag subsidies than that extra production would cost. If we get into a major conflict will those countries you mentioned supply us in our shortages, or will they be facing their own shortage issues? Yes, because that’s how alliances work. This is a This terrifies them because they realize how a) hopelessly outclassed they are, b) how useless their Russian-based tech is, c) how tactically incompetent a non-1st world great power truly is. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: Lots of people produce 155 rounds, not rare - and France, UK, SKr, US are ramping up multiple production lines. OK, let’s look specifically at 155 rounds, so far the USA has provided over 800,000 to the Ukraine according to various sources, and those numbers are from August. US production capacity is already being ramped from 14k/month to 40k/month. US alone, not counting the 20 other countries that produce it. Not a problem. But more important - is an 800,000 short-term round reduction a crisis? What % of stocks is that? What % of a projected Korean peninsula conflict? Which is our only real non-elective potential conflict now. That means we need to replenish our stocks, and that’s not including the thousands guided munitions also sent at that time. Where does the money to do that come from? We could stop voluntarily paying interest on recent graduate’s student loans, as pointed out by someone else. And then have $$ to spare. It’s chickenfeed in the federal budget. It’s actually quite possibly less; we probably spend more on subsidizing genuine chicken feed in ag subsidies than that extra production would cost. If we get into a major conflict will those countries you mentioned supply us in our shortages, or will they be facing their own shortage issues? Yes, because that’s how alliances work. This is a This terrifies them because they realize how a) hopelessly outclassed they are, b) how useless their Russian-based tech is, c) how tactically incompetent a non-1st world great power truly is. (Expand to see all comments) Any ideas of a military play by China just got postponed 50 years. I don’t know who’s feeding you that “China uber alles” strategic concept, but that’s not the strategic reality. This might give them a little extra room to flex against muslims in Central Asia. And they are welcome to it, it’s never really worked out well for anyone. But that’s all it really does. And Russia is not getting “decimated.” They were decimated by late March. We have moved into the genuine category of annihilation. We simply won’t need the weapons to stare down Russia again. If people want a real “Peace Dividend” with Russia, it’s coming. China, not so much - but that’s a different, but related issue. Gunslinger, this isn’t personal. The way our media works these days, we all get fed “channels” of information the sources want us to hear. I’m not arguing your points aren’t sincerely held or thoughtful. But there’s a lot of analysis of this situation that is way beyond MSM, twitter, and conventional sources. Digging out facts and getting them in perspective is harder these days than in the past I truly believe. WRT to this issue, this thread is one of the real gems about poking at assumptions (mine too) and getting to the nut of the matter. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 6:30:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: BustinCaps]
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: That was in part one of my arguments against those that were saying it was really costing us next to nothing to arm the Ukraine. People are fond of saying that we are not spending money while in fact we have to replenish stocks we’ve given up to them. In all of the news sources quoting officials that I linked to several things that are current production and in current use are cited. 155 rounds, Javelins (which now seem to be in short supply in the Ukraine), and replenishment of HIMARS which is a slow roll even if full war footing is implemented. And what ever happened to all those Switchblades and other loiter munitions? I’ve shown you repeatedly what’s in short supply, it’s not a secret and the info is out there. Yes China, and by extension it’s proxy allies such as North Korea, as I said earlier, for China to expand its sphere of influence and hold it is going to take more than naval battles, it’s going to take ground forces to hold any gains they hope to keep either in Taiwan or South Korea or for that matter should they go after Australia. And that means ground war which means artillery, and other land based weapons systems. And last, just the munitions being used in the Ukraine keep adding up, and will continue to do so outpacing production. This war is going to continue for a long time, short of WMD use, this is going to remain an ongoing conflict possibly for years. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: What exactly is it that is jeopardizing our readiness? Ammunition for systems is being increased in production, and the burden widely shared with allies. That was in part one of my arguments against those that were saying it was really costing us next to nothing to arm the Ukraine. People are fond of saying that we are not spending money while in fact we have to replenish stocks we’ve given up to them. What exactly is it that is jeopardizing our readiness? In all of the news sources quoting officials that I linked to several things that are current production and in current use are cited. 155 rounds, Javelins (which now seem to be in short supply in the Ukraine), and replenishment of HIMARS which is a slow roll even if full war footing is implemented. And what ever happened to all those Switchblades and other loiter munitions? I’ve shown you repeatedly what’s in short supply, it’s not a secret and the info is out there. China? Are they going to go full ground war anywhere against the rest of the free world? Yes China, and by extension it’s proxy allies such as North Korea, as I said earlier, for China to expand its sphere of influence and hold it is going to take more than naval battles, it’s going to take ground forces to hold any gains they hope to keep either in Taiwan or South Korea or for that matter should they go after Australia. And that means ground war which means artillery, and other land based weapons systems. And last, just the munitions being used in the Ukraine keep adding up, and will continue to do so outpacing production. This war is going to continue for a long time, short of WMD use, this is going to remain an ongoing conflict possibly for years. I’d argue that a Chinese expansionary war large enough to require transport of large sums of artillery assets from the US, would either immediately or shortly involve Russia as a Chinese ally or separate opportunistic belligerent. At a minimum, the US occupied with China would give Russia a mental green light to snatch what it wants. This ammunition expended against Russia now is ammunition we’d need to expend against Russia in any major conflict with China anyway. We are just doing it without China, and forever altering china’s strategic options. I’d also argue any war with China long enough to turn into a protracted artillery war where these stockpiles would come into play will be long enough and major enough to trigger US mobilization. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 6:50:50 AM EDT
[#47]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 7:16:41 AM EDT
[#48]
A few reports of mobiks defying orders, some small groups even breaking free and fighting TOWARDS Ukrainian lines to surrender.
Here’s one of a mass mutiny of 300 troops refusing orders, held in a makeshift prison in Luhansk Ob. Reportedly, many like it. Will the Russian army break this winter?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 7:27:49 AM EDT
[#49]
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2022 7:30:17 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunslinger808: And some of you are acting as if those systems and money being sent is nothing more than Goodwill hand me downs or garage sale junk. Granted much is out of date equipment better served by the Ukrainians, but a lot is top of the line gear that is not easily replenished even when production is stepped up to a war footing. And yes they are getting considerable currency help as well. I’m all for watching the Russians getting what they’ve deserved for almost a century, but not at the expense of leaving us here short. And yeah, that money to replace it does come from somewhere, Raytheon, Grumman, Lockheed, and other manufacturers expect to get paid, TANSTAAFL. Better they go to American companies expanding the manufacturing footprint. Don’t you agree? I’m a real world example, this expansion of production capacity may significantly improve my standard of living, employment wise. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File