Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gangmasterfader t1_j6lc861 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Biden says no F-16s for Ukraine as Russia claims gains by joshemerson

What the US has been sending so far is pretty much limited in range, while an F16 as a multi role "fighter" could strike deeper in to Russian territory.

That's probably a red line we don't need to cross.

131

[deleted] t1_j6m54fk wrote

[removed]

15

[deleted] t1_j6mh1vm wrote

[removed]

68

Grammarnazi_bot t1_j6mwwfa wrote

Approximately only 50% of Ukrainians can speak English, and the Ukrainian army is not composed of professional pilots. It’s best for their national security if things are translated, because a coin flip on whether or not they’ll easily learn things is not exactly a good thing

−12

IAmAPaidActor t1_j6myrp9 wrote

Snarky response: Less than 50% of Ukrainians are flying F16s 😉

Non-snarky response: Knowing English is a requirement to fly in any meaningful capacity.

https://unitingaviation.com/news/safety/pilot-air-traffic-controller-communication/

The language of the sky is English. Anyone who is being trained to fly a jet will already know it.

41

[deleted] t1_j6njjv6 wrote

[removed]

−16

lake_titty_caca t1_j6nv1qd wrote

Do you really think there are people who speak English as a second language but can't read the alphabet?

10

HumanFuture7 t1_j6p04pt wrote

There are people that speak English natively but are functionally (or literally) illiterate so yes.

−4

lake_titty_caca t1_j6p0gx3 wrote

People who speak English natively generally have learned it before they learn to read. So it makes sense that there are some who never learn how to read.

People who speak English as a second language are generally not learning it as an infant / toddler, so they are much more likely to be relying on written text as part of their learning process.

Just take the L.

3

HumanFuture7 t1_j6p2k81 wrote

> so they are much more likely to be relying on written text as part of their learning process.

More likely =/= guaranteed. Generally when learning a new language you do indeed learn how to read/write it. However that isn't always the case. If you only have conversations with friends that speak a different language how will you learn to write that language? Especially if their alphabet is different from your own.

Here's an example.

It also goes the other way, sometimes people can read/write foreign languages but are unable to speak it.

To say that there are no people that can speak but can't read a second language (in this case, English) is just plainly wrong.

>Just take the L.

Wasn't the initial commenter, no need to be a dick

−3

TailRudder t1_j6my73b wrote

I guarantee you the pilots speak English regardless of what the general population statistics are.

27

McCree114 t1_j6mevmv wrote

Yeah this is what people don't understand. It's not a videogame where Ukrainian pilots can just hop into any aircraft and go. All these Abrams, Bradleys, Patriot systems, etc that we're sending over will require conversions and training/retraining for the crews and maintenance techs.

19

DavidsWorkAccount t1_j6lpd87 wrote

Plus, someone would have to fly the planes there. That would put US troops within the war, which Biden has been straining not to do. I think Biden even mentioned this when they first asked.

−21

Rinzack t1_j6m2sp6 wrote

Fly F-16s to Poland. Ukrainian pilots who've been trained overseas hop into the jets and fly them into Ukrainian airspace. Solves the issue entirely

8

ZestycloseAd7083 t1_j6le0yf wrote

Why not? They initially crossed the line. Eventually Ukraine will carry out more bombings in Russia.

−54

gangmasterfader t1_j6lhflz wrote

I think that most tax-paying Americans can justify sending arms for Ukraine to defend itself, but don't want to have anything to do with funding offensive operations on Russian soil. We'd have nothing to gain.

32

MoonRakerWindow t1_j6ln0au wrote

No that my opinion matters in the grand scheme, but this is what I want for Ukraine:

  • Ukraine retakes all of its territory, including Crimea.

  • Ukraine pushes Russian forces off its soil.

  • Ukraine is in a position to defend itself from future attacks.

Although I get the strategic logic of striking Russia to help further those 3 goals, I think it would cause more problems than it solves.

After Ukraine retakes all of its territory, pushes Russia out, and these is an end to hostilities, THEN it makes sense for Ukraine to acquire more long range weapons. They would provide a strong deterrent from Russia invading again.

12

pegothejerk t1_j6lkinw wrote

I don't know about nothing to gain, there's always something to gain even from the worst choices, but there's definitely far more advantage to keeping Russia in a proxy war in a border country to Russia rather than spilling it into their country and then into ours.

2

[deleted] t1_j6llv31 wrote

[deleted]

4

pegothejerk t1_j6lnu8d wrote

You wouldn't have to tuck when you perform drag, you'd fit in tighter jean, you wouldn't have to wonder if it's really average size anymore, you'd no longer have to fear your dick getting cut off anymore, you could focus more on prostate orgasms, all sorts of things. Lots of downsides, too, of course.

23