Once I farted long enough for my mother to unlock my passenger side door then walk casually around the van to the driver's side, unlock her door and have a seat. We're talking a solid 11 second fart. That fart was more remarkable than 92's post.
this is what they will use if/when they find out where the f-16's are once they get to Ukraine but likely nothing to do with the intel. I suspect it is a cyber issue but just a hunch
For our defense budget I just assume were at least one step, if not more, ahead of our potential enemies. We better be
I hope we have an answer for drones. They've completely democratized warfare. Build better drones to out drone our enemie's drones? Build systems to destroy or disable drones?
Apparently they want to put nuclear warheads in orbit. Star Trek TOS's Assignment: Earth episode coming true 55 years late.
It's unstoppable with what Ukraine has and we aren't sending our most advanced SAM to Ukraine. And even if we did, even the most advanced SAM is going to miss from time to time. All Russia has to do is load the box and targets will be hit. But back to my original point, I thought Russia had deployed their best assets. This seems to counter that notion.
I’ll address this indirectly if I may. When the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1958, there was much weeping and gnashing of teeth from people who had neither the need to know or the intellectual curiosity to ask the right questions. They would point their finger at the Eisenhower Administration and cry out, “How could you let the Soviets get ahead of us in rocket technology?” Now the truth was — which no one could openly say at the time — our rockets did not need to be as powerful as the Soviets because our nuclear weapons were much lighter than theirs. So, while the Sputnik breakthrough was useful to make Americans realize the potential of satellites, the underlying fear that the Soviet Union had stolen a march on us with nuclear weapons delivery was erroneous. But to come full circle, if the Chinese and Russians have developed hypersonics and we haven’t, then you may comfortably be reassured that’s because they need them and we don’t. But if the need ever arises, it would not take us long. In the mean time, if Russia wants to keep using them on targets for which they are not necessary and giving us more and data about how to shoot them down, then so much the better.
The stuff they’re hitting — well, targeting anyway — hypersonics with is not what you should waste such expensive, low-density munitions on. If the purpose was a show of force, I would say they missed the mark (literally and figuratively). If the purpose was to give the U.S. usable data for future countermeasures, then they nailed it.
The hub-bub is about Russia putting nukes into space to act as anti-satellite weapons. Russia has long had satellites in orbit that have nuclear reactors for power.
I think this was sending a message. There has been talk of Russia launching a tactical nuke into a rural area of Ukraine, so that nobody is killed by it or very few. Obviously, that would be an expensive endeavor with low return, but it would clearly up the ante and require some sort of response from the U.S. That's what this feels like. I'm confident they have tested this technology hundreds of times and can easily hit a target just outside their border.
Ah, so you now agree they can’t win the war tactically, which you’ve been saying was right around the corner for months. Cooking off a nuke sends two messages only: 1. This is a last-ditch chance to win the war, because we can’t do it straight up; and 2. We are daring NATO to, at long last, make this official. My answer to their message is FAFO.
Where exactly have I been saying this? I've been saying not to expect any large offensives from the Russians, because their current holdings are sufficient to achieve their objective. Why would they go further than that? And firing a singular hypersonic cruise missile into Ukraine is no more an admission they can't win than our shock and awe campaign was in Iraq 2003. Fun facts: Iraq actually turned out to be a net loss for the U.S. and Russia is not going to be moved out of the Donbass.
Here’s a couple more fun facts: Russia does not need to waste a hypersonic — which it might need to face NATO powers — to hit anywhere in Ukraine with a nuke, so you’re hypothesis about why they threw away another one for no appreciable effect does not hold water; Russia does not yet control all of the land it claims as its own, so, yeah, it’s going to have to get off its ass at some point and go take it; Ukraine does not have to physically remove Russia from its land to get them to leave.
One of the main reasons Russia wants to steal Ukraine is for their rich farmland. Firing a nuke into said farmland would poison the land and aquifer for many decades. 0% chance Russia does this.
