sherpa

The object is to stop the killing and get to a ceasefire. Labelling someone a war criminal while the confrontation goes on doesn't move that ball forward. Stop he killing and worry about prosecution later.

Which is one more that exists that supports Putin, no matter the idiotic claims.

Just a fly on the wall here, but is there a basic reality that rational people here can agree on? Thinking that getting into a full blown WWIII is a really bad idea, and not supporting measures that would make that more likely is not "supporting" Putin. If folks who think that getting the US and NATO, and it would be mostly the US, into a shooting war against the Russians on their border is a good idea, or would ever save lives is a good idea, that idea is madness. Horrible as it is, people are going to die in this. Multiply that by hundreds if we went after the Russians.

There is quite a difference between the two. The Ukrainians are demonstrating intense national pride and defending themselves in every manner possible, and doing a pretty good job getting their story out. That gets peoples attention and support. The Afghan military, if ever there was such a thing, never did that. I was watching a youtube from a guy whose opinion I hold in high regard. He went on a special forces mission in Afghanistan with US troops. Long story short, they were with Afghan troops and those folks were asked, "why don't you fight these guys," and the response was, "That's the US' job." They simply didn't care. They remain a tribal culture with a "next dollar gets my allegiance," attitude, and no national identity to point to or rally around. Their light speed collapse proved that. Loss of life is sad on any scale, but it is human nature to support people you identify with, and I'm not talking race or culture.

Post 9/11 issues regarding this is not something I have ever addressed, nor would.

I don't care about who determines what a "war" is, or what that definition involves. I simply responded to an assertion that insurance companies would be involved in this Ukrainian thing, and I pointed out the war clause which indemnifies them. 9/11, and the way it was handled is a completely different subject, and not something I brought up.

Not "often true." Absolutely true. I don't know what insurance companies view as a "war," but I'm quite certain that any terrorist action has not been identified as a "war," and there have been hundreds. Ergo 9/11 is a red herring.

I never said anything of that sort. I am not an insurance adjuster and I am saying that what Russia is doing in the Ukraine is absolutely a war, by any definition. You brought 9/11 into this, and I have no idea what the definition they use is, but I guarantee that this Russia thing fits it.

Maybe you don't understand what I said. The Russian invasion of the Ukraine is the very definition of war. 9/11 was not. You suggested the linkage between the two. I denied it. 9/11 wasn't anything like what the Russians did.

I'll leave the nuance of what is and isn't a war as defined in a war clause, but I am reasonably certain that one sovereign country launching an invasion against a neighboring sovereign involving all its' military ex navy meets the definition. That aint 9/11

The deterioration of Germany's military capability is stunning. Recently, not one of their transport aircraft were mission ready. Their fighter aircraft are in equally bad condition, at one point they had about 28 mission ready. Tanks and ground forces-same thing. This has been a wake up call for them. The "war" portion went really well. The "peace" portion was horrible, and the Russians have no apparent ability to experience a greater outcome in Ukraine.

Insurance companies are indemnified by a war clause that eliminates their exposure during war.

There is no reason to send US submarines into Russian waters, and by the way, all US submarines are nuclear powered. I get that there are people here who think trump is kind of special. He is a total idiot regarding military issues, and it would be best for all involved if he departed the political environment and simply faded away.

Positioning them a vast difference from using one.

I am not stating anything other than my view. Chemical or bio would have a similar but not quite response as a nuc. It is a bit easier to hide those. Using a nuc changes the entire calculus. It hasn't been done wince WWII, and it isn't at all necessary or even desirous to achieve his objectives. I'm not going to speculate on a response to delivering a nuc to a Ukrainian city, since I think it is an unreasonable suggestion, but it would be the end of his regime.

He isn't effectively using a nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons have long lasting radiation effects, and he doesn't need to. If he did, that would be the end of this Russian regime. Yes, a retaliatory nuclear strike is worth it, if they launched a nuc against a US target. This aint that.

I expect you're using "nuke" figuratively. If he ever used a nuclear weapon against a city there would be no turning back. It is simply unthinkable, and I am starting to doubt his military would obey a clearly illegal order.

I'm kind of up to speed on at least the air and air delivered stuff, and we've got very interesting "new and improved" systems, and are working on even cooler stuff, like drone wingmen. What is important is that we prevent them from getting into the wrong hands, something that was incredibly poorly handled when we quit Afghanistan. Ultimately that stuff ends up in the middle east somewhere.

Always sounds attractive. The problem is that when you realize that a lot of "stuff" sold to relatively unreliable govs ends up in the hands of very bad people, and the market for those type of things is really avtive.

Just an observation from my view. Flying supersonic requires huge fuel consumption, something Russians don't have I seriously doubt any sounds are from sonic booms.

Now fully focused, and exceeding expectations. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60771210 It gets better and better with this thing. Amazing stuff to come in the next few months, and that's just the start. Webb is going to be amazing.

You can overcome lots of things. You cannot overcome other world obnoxiousness. When the Secret Service views an assignment to cover you as punishment, you've got serious people problems.

I am proud of you Tibs. There are a few components to that link. One is the drastic diminution of the Russian Air Force and their obvious inability to coordinate and support their ground forces. Two is the obvious lack of training, especially in close air support, which is training and com intense. Three is something we have always known from debriefing, which is that the Russians have limited capability to prevent friendly shoot downs. They simply haven't cared. Four is that Putin is screwed. His only out card is a NATO intervention. Th last ten minutes or so discuss that in detail.

A very reasonable, accurate assessment of many issues tht have come up in this thread, specifically, the air war. The guy with the Navy shirt on is Ward Carroll, a retired F-14 RIO, (back seater). Many things I have mentioned are explained in detail, ie., no fly zone, providing airplanes etc. Time spent watching this is far better spent than watching the TV nonsense spewed out by ignorant "hosts." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBARgW_vHVE&t=79s

Putin has been out of touch with reality for quite a while. His military isn't anywhere near what he thought it would be. His ability to strike fear is gone, except for the very real threat of nuclear options. A dictator who surrounds himself with people who only tell him what he wants to hear is ultimately ill-informed. The Russian military has been lying and misleading their leaders for years. That's what happens when you are underfunded and need to keep your career on track. This has been suspected for years, and now is grossly obvious to the entire world.