Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Culverin t1_iy2y35v wrote

The US and allies should be supplying Ukraine with longer range munitions to delete every Russian piece of kit in Crimea

Limiting the Ukrainians to artillery duels of similar ranges to the Russians is just dragging this out and costing the lives of Ukrainian soldiers and innocent women and children.

Give them the gear to end this sooner. Let's stop half-assing the help.

136

Matthiey t1_iy4m597 wrote

Look, the US needs to get rid of obsolete or near obsolete inventory, not to mention that that inventory needs to be replaced by Lockheed Martin and friends as well as lining a couple Senators' pockets on buying shares from them. Do you REALLY think that having a short war is in ANYONE's interest save for the Ukrainians?

The help is not half-assed. It's full ass to milk this situation for all it is worth.

8

Culverin t1_iy4ntmn wrote

That's a bit too simplistic. It's not just about replenishing inventory levels.
Ukraine is also free advertising for the might of the American military industrial complex. The more it can flex on the Russians, the better it looks.

For context, Poland previously had 20 HIMARS on order.

Now they want 500 units.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/05/27/poland-eyes-500-us-himars-launchers-to-boost-its-artillery-forces/

That's not rockets, that's the actual vehicle launch system.

How throw in the parts and service, the supply vehicle and the rocket reloads,

and now Poland sees how much ammo is needed for a sustained fight?

You're thinking medium amount of milking it. Ukraine only has 16 HIMARS at this point.

This Poland result is the big picture of milking it.

27

Jebus_UK t1_iy52j0i wrote

Plus you know....at about 20 billion for a war that destroys one of the USAs biggest threats or at least sets it back 20 years with zero US casualties, well it's a bargain. I mean it needs to happen don't get me wrong but it suits the US and NATO to have a perma weakened Russia.

12

Matthiey t1_iy4og0t wrote

As of last week, it's actually 20 HIMARS but, yes, this has been the best PR event for US military engineering firms.

7

grchelp2018 t1_iy4ykdu wrote

Poland is buying big because they hate russia. As soon as russia acted out, they were going to place a big order. Are countries far removed from the russian threats suddenly increasing their US mil purchases?

5

imjesusbitch t1_iy5gsxz wrote

Ya that article was from May and the US waited until June to send HIMARS to Ukraine. Not really the best example. Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia all ordered some shortly after seeing them in action in Ukraine. Though I'm not sure if they were planning to get them before the war.

1

digginghistoryup t1_iy656lo wrote

Didn’t Poland decide to buy South Korea mobile rocket launchers instead because they are readily available?

2

arnicticon t1_iy4s7un wrote

Peace is maintained by superior weaponry. That's sorta how things have always worked.

7

All_Work_All_Play t1_iy4tv75 wrote

Superior weaponry and rational actors on both sides of the table. The latter is missing, at least on Russia's side. Well, they're also missing weaponry too...

5

[deleted] t1_iy3c5dm wrote

[deleted]

−8

Culverin t1_iy3d1h0 wrote

Ukraine has already been hitting targets in Russia. Just not with western kit.

They have also been highly disciplined with the gear provided by the USA. Unless I'm mistaken, they have not lost a single HIMARS unit in the months they have been there or we'd see that all over Russian media.

They have been shown to follow instructions.

Possible provocation is just based on Russian perception which is totally arbitrary anyways.

28

Gix_Neidhaart t1_iy3lq77 wrote

Thats a lie, i have seen atleast 30+ confirmed destruction of himars from absolutley 101% trustworthy russian sources on twitter

22

Nightfire50 t1_iy3nbic wrote

in a third floor window?

12

Markus-752 t1_iy3p3po wrote

Yes, you can clearly see the two shots in the back of the hatch of the HIMARS. They are clearly just to end it's suffering before it hits the ground since it did indeed fall out that 3rd story window.

Oh and apparently it had novichok instead of Oil in its engine which clearly indicates a suicide. Simply tragic.

9

Alexander_Granite t1_iy5y05c wrote

Russia’s ability to shoot down or capture the longer range missiles is also a concern for the US.

0

Kastrenzo t1_iy3o256 wrote

Belgorod has already been struck multiple times. Ukrainian gunships flew into Russia and blew the shit out of oil and gas facilities there

And Russia just ate it.

9

Swampberry t1_iy415ef wrote

The issue is that if it becomes a clear NATO led attack on Russia it can very easily lead to nuclear doomsday. It has to be Ukrainians running it, and I don't think Ukraine has many long range missile capabilities already.

−17

fury420 t1_iy5435c wrote

It seems worth pointing out that Russian pilots flying Russian jets have literally shot down hundreds of US/NATO aircraft and it didn't lead to nuclear doomsday. (Korean war)

−2

ritz139 t1_iy345uw wrote

Ukrainian soldiers and lives aren't very important.

The important thing is killing Russians while making sure they don't feel justified using nukes.

−68

Culverin t1_iy358xs wrote

That's been the justification not the send Ukraine ATACMS,

But if we're going to be honest, if Ukraine was told "our continued support of you is contingent these ATACMS don't get used on Russian territory proper", they would quite likely follow that directive.

Ukraine has already been hitting targets in Russia, just not with western long-range weapons. It's been drone attacks and sabotage.

​

Let's just unlock the Ukrainians so they can at least hit every spot within their borders including Crimea.

​

Sevastopol naval base? and all the ships and supplies there?

22

ritz139 t1_iy3e4iq wrote

That wouldn't do .

That will force Russia hands to do an all out mobilization, and potentially NATO soldiers to be mobbed since Ukrainian bodies might run out.

As long as Russia can't advance, everything is fine, as without ceasefire, we will continue to throttle them long term.

−14

OceanIsVerySalty t1_iy3ndut wrote

That’s not particularly plausible.

You’re assuming a lot: that Russians will cooperate with a full mobilization. That Ukraine, a country of 43 million people, will somehow “run out of bodies.” That other countries won’t step up their responses long before that occurs. That if that somehow does occur, that NATO would then decide that that’s the time to put boots on the ground.

13

ritz139 t1_iy62btx wrote

i see.

so why isn't biden & nato stepping up?

interesting if you think in an all out war between russia and ukraine it isn't a possibility ukraine run out of soldiers first

−1

TheShadow8909 t1_iy2tuc5 wrote

Build more weapons then - like the good old times - be the "arsenal of democracy"

34

[deleted] t1_iy32wb5 wrote

It's not a switch you can just turn on and off. There's no doubt the USA in particular and the West in general are scaling up production of military hardware, but they don't want supply to far outstrip demand. They'll aim to only barely produce more than is demanded.

The world isn't bipolar like it was during the First Cold War. China wasn't a real threat back then. Not like today. Now, anything the West does to counter Russia, needs to also take into account the possibility that it might leave the West too economically overextended to properly react to sudden unexpected moves from China.

28

Professional-Bee-190 t1_iy3p6gw wrote

>It's not a switch you can just turn on and off.

Well, the war started in February of 2022 so... Not like increasing some amount of production by now is some kind of insurmountable task.

2

olgrandad t1_iy2z68r wrote

This would allow either allow Ukraine to use HIMARS more effectively from a distance or, if they wanted to be risky, they could strike northern Crimea from just outside of Kherson. Russia will have to relocate its ammo dumps twice the distance they currently are.

16

autotldr t1_iy2vuhw wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot)


> The invasion of Ukraine drove up demand for American-made weapons and ammunition, while US allies in Eastern Europe are "Putting a lot of orders" in for a range of arms as they supply Ukraine, Bush added.

> Although the United States has rebuffed requests for the 297km range ATACMS missile, the GLSDB's 150km range would allow Ukraine to hit valuable military targets that have been out of reach, and help it continue pressing its counterattacks by disrupting Russian rear areas.

> According to the document - a Boeing proposal to US European Command, which is overseeing weapons headed to Ukraine - the main components of the GLSDB would come from current US stores.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 GLSDB^#2 weapon^#3 supply^#4 military^#5

8

cencorshipisbad t1_iy3d1cj wrote

Russians are launching unarmed nuclear icbms from its Blackjack fleet as decoys. Talk about out of weapons.

Its all relative and Ukraine still in a much better logistical situation.

7

The_Newsroom_AI t1_iy4aks8 wrote

Find other coverage on this topic here:
- Reuters - U.S. weighs sending 100-mile strike weapon to Ukraine
- TRT World - Pentagon mulls sending 100-mile strike weapon to Ukraine: report

My startup tracks how global news events are being covered across the world, and we've identified two opposing perspectives that are spreading on this topic. Note: we don't defend that both perspectives always have the same weight, but believe it's important to be aware of how the two sides are being portrayed.

Perspectives that support the Boeing weapons proposal:
- Ukraine faces an increasing need for more sophisticated weapons as the war drags on.
- The proposed system combines the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) with a M26 rocket motor, both of which are common in U.S. inventories.

Perspectives critical of the Boeing weapons proposal:
- US weapons stockpiles are "getting low relative to the levels we like to keep on hand and certainly to the levels we're going to need to deter a China conflict", according to a weapons and security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
- The Boeing plan requires a price discovery waiver, exempting the contractor from an in-depth review that ensures the Pentagon is getting the best deal possible.

5

tomu- t1_iy6iw1z wrote

Give Ukraine the whole kit and caboodle for Christmas.

1

Vegan_Honk t1_iy7de4c wrote

Are you telling me we're having trouble supplying weapons? The fucking USA doesn't have the supply chain going correctly to the point where we're running out of weapons?
That cannot be correct. That would be fucking stupid. Who's so incompetent they cannot get the weapons right in times of war?

1

StainerIncognito t1_iy3jloi wrote

Would ruzzian 'full mobilization' make any difference at this point? They're slowly suffocating under sanctions. They can't manufacture equipment in any large numbers. I don't think it would make any difference if Ukraine started hitting military targets inside ruzzia with western weapons. Ruzzia is doing all that they can do already.

−3

HarkansawJack t1_iy4fjn4 wrote

Just give them nukes. Russia broke the treaty, Ukraine needs nukes again. Putin obviously only cares about nukes.

−8

Hirronimus t1_iy3o2dj wrote

How many Ukrainian civilians need to die for the West and NATO to realize that they need to close the sky. If they won't do it, give more tools for Ukrainians to do it themselves.

Sometimes I read these articles and I feel like Ukraine is fighting this war with one hand tied behind it's back. It's hell of a handicap, but imagine if they weren't restricted by politics of the west.

−13

Impressive_Bank_3794 t1_iy3viq3 wrote

So if we didn’t give them a bunch of shit? They would get crushed. It’s being funded by American tax dollars I’m sure that’s so hard on Ukraine

2

Hirronimus t1_iy3x5pe wrote

Wtf are you even talking about?

I am not saying we don't help. I am saying Ukraine needs more so they can do the work of closing their sky themselves.

In the beginning of this war a lot of people called on NATO to close the sky. Imagine if UA had the AA systems then.

Help is there. Many of UA leaders have been saying that the West is helping, albeit slow to prevent unnecessary deaths.

−4

Moon_Moon200 t1_iy3ymik wrote

Because NATO closing the skies would mean soldiers using weapons to attack and kill Russian soldiers using planes, which could be interpreted as a declaration of war.

On the other hand, we cannot give just give the weapons to Ukraine. They would need months of training beforehand. And those weapons in particular are not plentiful.

Take israel for example, they have around 5 iron domes that everyone was calling they should give them all to Ukraine while being attacked themselves. You also need a few of them just to protect a single city. You would need a large part of NATO weapons reserve to keep up with Russia country wide missile barrage

9

imjesusbitch t1_iy5husa wrote

Russia sent their own pilots and planes to Korea, and killed Americans with them. That wasn't considered an act of war then, would be no different now.

−1

Moon_Moon200 t1_iy5pkdk wrote

That was the Soviet Union during the cold war. They denied their involvement and the US government was the one who chose not to press the investigation to avoid escalation, like now. It was a good test after all to try technology and combat tactics without pushing WW3

In this case however, a closed skies escenario would mean a constant stream of missiles attacks and anti air weapons from NATO territory or any of its bases, weapons that the Russian can track given enough attacks, and that we cannot know that Putin wont seek retaliation, so is better not to test the limits knowing the possible outcome.

0

Impressive_Bank_3794 t1_iy3xoua wrote

One arm tied behind their back? Bro we are propping them up. Oh yeah let’s go to war with Russia that will solve it

5