←back to thread

577 points mooreds | 7 comments | | HN request time: 0.964s | source | bottom
Show context
leshokunin ◴[] No.42176328[source]
The constant Russian interference, combined with the regular escalation from the jets patrolling, and the radar jamming, really needs to be dealt with.

We're stuck between having to do timid actions and full NATO escalation. This feels like constant creep.

replies(9): >>42176387 #>>42176516 #>>42176555 #>>42176659 #>>42176846 #>>42176978 #>>42177068 #>>42177307 #>>42178494 #
petre ◴[] No.42176846[source]
Best course of action at this time would be to properly arm Ukraine.
replies(3): >>42177024 #>>42177261 #>>42177311 #
johnisgood ◴[] No.42177261[source]
Which happened and kept happening for a long time now, including the US sending billions of dollars and weapons (among other things). That did not help, did it?
replies(3): >>42177320 #>>42178401 #>>42185775 #
1. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.42177320[source]
> Which happened and kept happening for a long time now

We've been drip feeding and hand tying Ukraine. Practically every military expert has said this is not the way to win a war.

replies(2): >>42177363 #>>42177850 #
2. johnisgood ◴[] No.42177363[source]
I heard US sent so many weapons that even US' supply of weapons were running low if and when it came to defending themselves. Is it true? I have no clue.
replies(3): >>42177405 #>>42177521 #>>42196778 #
3. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.42177405[source]
> heard US sent so many weapons that even US' supply of weapons were running low if and when it came to defending themselves. Is it true? I have no clue.

No, it's not. For small-scale war, we are amply stocked. For large-scale war, stocks don't matter, production does.

4. Hamuko ◴[] No.42177521[source]
Surely if the US was actually in a situation where it was attacked and had to defend itself, they’d be able to do that. If nothing else, the civilians have a whole lot of guns too and attacks on the US (think Pearl Harbor, 911) have a massive rallying effect. As far as I know, the biggest thing preventing a civilian semi-automatic from being converted to an automatic firearm is the risk of a long prison stint.
replies(1): >>42177864 #
5. s1artibartfast ◴[] No.42177850[source]
No, but it's a good way to put some fear in our NATO allies and it is a good way to waste a bunch of Russian resources.
6. jonplackett ◴[] No.42177864{3}[source]
The USA is a giant ocean away in any direction from any meaningful threat. No-one is invading the USA. Everyone will be nuked to oblivion before that would ever come to pass.
7. mrguyorama ◴[] No.42196778[source]
It is not true.

The US has THOUSANDS of tanks and THOUSANDS of Bradleys. We have sent Ukraine 32 Abrams and 300 Bradleys. For reference, Australia was able to swing sending Ukraine 50 Abrams. The US has THOUSANDS of F16s, and is starting to build up thousands of F35s. We have full munition stockpiles for all missions for both platforms. We gave Ukraine about 1000 various "armored vehicles", like hundreds of M113s which are nearly useless on a modern battlefield except as glorified trucks. We sent Ukraine 200 "Strykers" that we considered a failure in the middle east. We sent a few hundred MRAPs. We sent 20 HIMARs systems, out of over 600 built. The US sent only a single patriot battery.

I encourage you to go look at the numbers the US put together for the various gulf wars. We sent a trickle of supplies.

The only substantial supply we offered was 3 million 155mm artillery rounds, which is a large fraction of our stockpile but the US (before Ukraine) did not care for tube artillery, preferring instead to lob JDAMs and other air launched munitions. This is also only a problem because American Industry refuses to invest in increasing production capacity unless we bribe them, you know, just like capitalism says it should work.

The people who said we were harming our weapons stocks were lying. Reconsider who shared that information with you.