Democracy’s Fiery Ordeal: The War in Ukraine 🇺🇦

[All_Pro_Bills]

14 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

She is specially responding to a question regarding the use of cluster bombs against civilians. Go to the 15 second mark of the link.

Cluster bombs in known civilian areas is clearly a war crime.

 

That is not the case now presented with the latest weapons promise to Ukraine. If they do deploy them against known civilian targets, it should be judged as a war crime.

 

On a side note, what a difference between this Press Sec. and the moron they are using now.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the rules of engagement but aren't civilian areas generally off limits regardless of the type of weapon?

[ChiGoose]

13 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the rules of engagement but aren't civilian areas generally off limits regardless of the type of weapon?

Generally, targeting civilians is off limits but I suppose aggressors can always claim the civilians were actually engaged in combat or assisting fighters. 
 

The issue with cluster bombs is that there is a percentage of the small bombs that don’t explode when dropped (duds). These often are found years later and can then explode when found by people. That’s why using cluster bombs in civilian areas is especially egregious. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

10 hours ago, Jauronimo said:

Foreign policy experts in the US have known and warned that Ukraine joining NATO was a red line for Russia for 20 plus years, from what I have read.  This war was entirely predictable and yet here we are.  I am sympathetic to the rights of a free nation to self determine their trade, military, and economic alliances but that is not how geo politics works.  I guess there is always cold war style tit for tat and familiar narratives like take down the despot that we can use to support our own involvement in Ukraine but when has that ever worked out favorably?  Aiding in toppling Putin's regime would be a feel good story for 5 minutes but there is no guarantee the successor regime is any better.  In all likelihood the power vacuum and opportunism likely creates a less stable, more dangerous situation across the old soviet bloc and middle east.

 

From a perspective of Western involvement what does victory look like and is it worth the cost?  

 

 

It looks like Russia is a paper tiger.  Perhaps they can be turned.  Lots of oil there.  Not to mention that they ruthlessly attacked a sovereign nation and used f'in cluster bombs.  This is Vietnam with us kicking ass...Would I rather they not invaded?  You bet.  But the Ukrainians remember what Stalin did to them, starving them out..  They certainly do.  And they're a valuable allie in the region.

Edited July 8, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Joe Ferguson forever]

32 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Here's the US response to using cluster bombs.

 

The cluster bombs are those fat bombs, three, one by his left ear and two at the outboard stations.

What he has his arm on is HARM, also discussed in this thread, and on his head is a Sidewinder heater with front quarter capability.

The other side of the airplane is similarly armed, so that's six clusters, two Sidewinders and two HARM missiles.

 

Standard alert 15 loadout at sea on a carrier. If there is time, and the threat is known to not require certain weapons, they would be downloaded, time permitting.

pls splain in nonmilitary jingo.  Is this a US plane or Russian?  If US, is it bad we match weapons?

Edited July 8, 2023 by redtail hawk

[sherpa]

21 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the rules of engagement but aren't civilian areas generally off limits regardless of the type of weapon?

 

Yes that is generally true among civilized nations.

Each country has its own rules for its own military.

Russia is out of control.

They have no control over what their own troops are doing, and certainly none regarding the Wagner group.

 

Cluster munitions are far less dangerous than mine fields. The bomblet "duds" are visible, as they lay on the ground, unburied, unlike land mines.

The US munitions have about a 2% dud rate compared with about a 30% rate for the Russian trash.

 

It would be far better if they were delivered by air, rather than artillery, as the accuracy is far better.

Given the significant capability of Russian air defense, that doesn't seem realistic, just now. 

 

They are extremely effective and just what is needed.

If the Ukrainians want to use them and are willing to deal with the risk, on their own land, they should be able to make that decision.

 

5 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

pls splain in nonmilitary jingo.  Is this a US plane or Russian?  If US, is it bad we match weapons?

 

It's me, aboard USS Kitty Hawk standing alert 15 in the Indian Ocean.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

5 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Yes that is generally true among civilized nations.

Each country has its own rules for its own military.

Russia is out of control.

They have no control over what their own troops are doing, and certainly none regarding the Wagner group.

 

Cluster munitions are far less dangerous than mine fields. The bomblet "duds" are visible, as they lay on the ground, unburied, unlike land mines.

The US munitions have about a 2% dud rate compared with about a 30% rate for the Russian trash.

 

It would be far better if they were delivered by air, rather than artillery, as the accuracy is far better.

Given the significant capability of Russian air defense, that doesn't seem realistic, just now. 

 

They are extremely effective and just what is needed.

If the Ukrainians want to use them and are willing to deal with the risk, on their own land, they should be able to make that decision.

 

 

It's me, aboard USS Kitty Hawk standing alert 15 in the Indian Ocean.

Thank you for your service.  I missed some dialogue.  Are you against us sending cluster bombs or equipping Ukraine in general?  edit:  It seems you judge cluster bombs appropriate.  What about our military support of Ukraine in general?

Edited July 8, 2023 by redtail hawk

[sherpa]

Just now, redtail hawk said:

Thank you for your service.  I missed some dialogue.  Are you against us sending cluster bombs or equipping Ukraine in general?

 

Nope. Not at all.

I'm for doing what it takes to get Russia out of Ukraine as fast as possible, using humanitarian means in an ugly war.

I fully support using cluster bombs against Russian military personnel and mechanized artillery inside the Ukraine and it should have been done months ago.

[sherpa]

By the way, regarding the cost of these munitions, the Administration, I'm sure on information from DOD, is claiming the cluster munitions are off the shelf supply approaching the end of their shelf life, so they either get used or taken out of inventory. Ergo, no real way to expense them accurately.

That is the case with a lot of what we have given them. The media reports the cost, but that's not really an accurate data point for the actual cost.

A lot of it has been stuff in our inventory, running out of lifespan.

HIMARS and shoulder mounted anti air missiles are the exception.

Raytheon has mentioned that issue publicly.

 

By the way, if you look at that picture I provided, notice the yellow bands on each weapon. That means they are real, live weapons.

The two yellow bands on the cluster bombs, Rockeye in this case, mean that is is a live weapon and that it has thermal protection inside to lengthen the "cook off" time before they'd explode in case of a fire on the flight deck. 

The red things on the nose is the protective cover of the fuse, and would be removed by the ordies when on the catapult just prior to launce.

 

[yall]

9 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

It's me, aboard USS Kitty Hawk standing alert 15 in the Indian Ocean.

Quit dodging the question; are you Russian or American?

 

Seriously though, sweet pic.

Edited July 8, 2023 by yall

[All_Pro_Bills]

15 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

Yes that is generally true among civilized nations.

Each country has its own rules for its own military.

Russia is out of control.

They have no control over what their own troops are doing, and certainly none regarding the Wagner group.

 

Cluster munitions are far less dangerous than mine fields. The bomblet "duds" are visible, as they lay on the ground, unburied, unlike land mines.

The US munitions have about a 2% dud rate compared with about a 30% rate for the Russian trash.

 

It would be far better if they were delivered by air, rather than artillery, as the accuracy is far better.

Given the significant capability of Russian air defense, that doesn't seem realistic, just now. 

 

They are extremely effective and just what is needed.

If the Ukrainians want to use them and are willing to deal with the risk, on their own land, they should be able to make that decision.

I appreciate your insights on these weapons systems and previous experience with Russian tactics and weapons which enables you to understand and "see" the conflict from the perspective of the opponent.  A valuable skill in many areas.  I do have a few follow up questions if I may?

Short of tactical nukes, are there any weapons in the arsenal you would recommend being withheld for proprietary or other reasons like not wanting to risk the enemy capturing and reverse engineering it?  Sure we said do whatever it takes but everything has constraints and risks.

Do you think the Russians are holding back anything?  Advanced weopons or assets like special forces units?

What's your best case assessment for Ukraine?  My rudimentary assessment is there's no path to victory, if that's defined as expelling Russia from all held territory,  without a direct US/NATO combat commitment.  That appears off the table, for now

 

[sherpa]

32 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I appreciate your insights on these weapons systems and previous experience with Russian tactics and weapons which enables you to understand and "see" the conflict from the perspective of the opponent.  A valuable skill in many areas.  I do have a few follow up questions if I may?

Short of tactical nukes, are there any weapons in the arsenal you would recommend being withheld for proprietary or other reasons like not wanting to risk the enemy capturing and reverse engineering it?  Sure we said do whatever it takes but everything has constraints and risks.

Do you think the Russians are holding back anything?  Advanced weopons or assets like special forces units?

What's your best case assessment for Ukraine?  My rudimentary assessment is there's no path to victory, if that's defined as expelling Russia from all held territory,  without a direct US/NATO combat commitment.  That appears off the table, for now

 

 

Great question, and I am not an expert on the current battlefield situation. In my view, there has never been a conflict that has more BS put out by interested parties, so I really don't know what the current status on the ground is.

 

What I do know is how to win wars, using the US model, which really has worked without any realistic denial.

 

There are a couple of significant issues in this thing.

 

The Russians have significant problems. They are poorly equipped, poorly led and not committed to the end game.

The Ukrainians have other problems.

They are incapable of achieving air superiority. The status of Russian air defenses, and the Ukrainian air assets tilts to the Russians.

If the Ukrainians could achieve air superiority, this thing is over in a month.

 

Specifically to your question,  there are weapons we have used that I'm certain have been exploited by other intel orgs.

Not good, but they probably had that info anyway.

 

What they don't have, re the US capability, is any knowledge of how we would use our assets. The F-35 and F-22, along with F-18 variants based on aircraft carriers and our jamming capability is not something they have seen, and would be decisive.

 

The US is extremely good at coordinating really good assets. Light years ahead of our NATO allies.

That is our unmatched strength; synergistic applications of existing systems.

Nobody spends more time at it and nobody is close to our capability.

 

More specifically to your question, I would never advocate the use of chemical or biological weapons.

 

Re-reading your thoughtful post there is really no "path to victory" for the Russians.

They will neve successfully occupy land in the Ukraine.

They have no system that the Ukrainians will buy into, and they are militarily impotent vis a vis additional land capture.

They are screwed, and its just a matter of time

Edited July 8, 2023 by sherpa

[All_Pro_Bills]

40 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Great question, and I am not an expert on the current battlefield situation. In my view, there has never been a conflict that has more BS put out by interested parties, so I really don't know what the current status on the ground is.

 

What I do know is how to win wars, using the US model, which really has worked without any realistic denial.

 

There are a couple of significant issues in this thing.

 

The Russians have significant problems. They are poorly equipped, poorly led and not committed to the end game.

The Ukrainians have other problems.

They are incapable of achieving air superiority. The status of Russian air defenses, and the Ukrainian air assets tilts to the Russians.

If the Ukrainians could achieve air superiority, this thing is over in a month.

 

Specifically to your question,  there are weapons we have used that I'm certain have been exploited by other intel orgs.

Not good, but they probably had that info anyway.

 

What they don't have, re the US capability, is any knowledge of how we would use our assets. The F-35 and F-22, along with F-18 variants based on aircraft carriers and our jamming capability is not something they have seen, and would be decisive.

 

The US is extremely good at coordinating really good assets. Light years ahead of our NATO allies.

That is our unmatched strength; synergistic applications of existing systems.

Nobody spends more time at it and nobody is close to our capability.

 

More specifically to your question, I would never advocate the use of chemical or biological weapons.

 

Re-reading your thoughtful post there is really no "path to victory" for the Russians.

They will neve successfully occupy land in the Ukraine.

They have no system that the Ukrainians will buy into, and they are militarily impotent vis a vis additional land capture.

They are screwed, and its just a matter of time

There is indeed a lot of BS. The fact Russia's frontline force is a mercenary group is telling about the incompetency of their government forces.

Another thing I find particularly absurd is that Putin's goal is to re-capture the former Soviet block States.   They've demonstrated the ability to re-take nothing.  Its pure fantasy. Surely, he must know that along with every military analyst at the Pentagon knows it.  Every time I hear somebody articulate that danger I get a good chuckle.  It's about as likely as me regaining my youthful energy and "good" looks. 

Something I've shouted out low and high is we should be.100 times more focused and concerned about China.  In a lot of ways the obsession with Russia is a dangerous distraction from the real threat.  Like worrying about a Racoon rifling through the trash can outside the cabin in the woods while unnoticed a pack of Wolves lurks just beyond the treeline.  Lately. It seems that threat is started to get more attention but more is required.  Not only are they building a formidable military they've also infiltrated most American private and public institutions through their program of "elite capture".  

 

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills

[reddogblitz]

10 hours ago, sherpa said:

the way, regarding the cost of these munitions, the Administration, I'm sure on information from DOD, is claiming the cluster munitions are off the shelf supply approaching the end of their shelf life, so they either get used or taken out of inventory. Ergo, no real way to expense them accurately.

That is the case with a lot of what we have given them. The media reports the cost, but that's not really an accurate data point for the actual cost.

A lot of it has been stuff in our inventory, running out of lifespan.

 

Yes and no. You may be right on having  hard time determining their value due to depreciation etc.

 

But the bottom line is us taxpayers paid full price for them when we bought them.

 

This puts us one step closer to sending fighting troops over there.  

Edited July 8, 2023 by reddogblitz

[sherpa]

1 hour ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Yes and no. You may be right on having  hard time determining their value due to depreciation etc.

 

But the bottom line is us taxpayers paid full price for them when we bought them.

 

This puts us one step closer to sending fighting troops over there.  

 

I'm not sure what your point is by claiming it puts us one step closer.....

Sending end of life span munitions has nothing to do with troop deployment, unless there is something I am missing.

[Tiberius]

Great leader 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

Is the small incursion over yet? Or are we still scouring the stock room for more weapons to sell? 

[reddogblitz]

4 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

I'm not sure what your point is by claiming it puts us one step closer.....

Sending end of life span munitions has nothing to do with troop deployment, unless there is something I am missing.

 

My point in saying it puts us one step closer to sending fighting troops has to do with President Biden saying all along he's not gonna send send something and then wah-la, he sends it.

 

First it wss tanks. No tanks. Then we sent tanks.

 

Then it was F-16s.  No F-16s. Then we sent F-16s. 

 

Then it was cluster bombs. No cluster bombs. Then we sent cluster bombs. 

 

All along he's been saying no troops. As we found out from the leaker there are troops there now.  If Ukraine can't end it with cluster bombs, then what?  What's left besides troops?

 

I also remember very well how he was a major driver in the Iraq war as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee running the hearings.  He also voted for it and all the continuing funding.

 

I don't trust President Biden to not send troops. We'll see but I am skeptical at the claims of "no boots on the ground".

 

 

Edited July 9, 2023 by reddogblitz

[SoCal Deek]

16 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

My point in saying it puts us one step closer to sending fighting troops has to do with President Biden saying all along he's not gonna send send something and then wah-la, he sends it.

 

First it wss tanks. No tanks. Then we sent tanks.

 

Then it was F-16s.  No F-16s. Then we sent F-16s. 

 

Then it was cluster bombs. No cluster bombs. Then we sent cluster bombs. 

 

All along he's been saying no troops. As we found out from the leaker there are troops there now.  If Ukraine can't end it with cluster bombs, then what?  What's left besides troops?

 

I also remember very well how he was a major driver in the Iraq war as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee running the hearings.  He also voted for it and all the continuing funding.

 

I don't trust President Biden to not send troops. We'll see but I am skeptical at the claims of "no boots on the ground".

 

 

We won’t be sending troops. The Left has found their perfect war. No risk. Just put it on the credit card. Oh and put a Ukrainian flag on your Twitter feed.

Done! 

[ChiGoose]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

We won’t be sending troops. The Left has found their perfect war. No risk. Just put it on the credit card. Oh and put a Ukrainian flag on your Twitter feed.

Done! 

What do you think happens if Russia wins the war? If they take out the Ukrainian government and install their own puppet government?

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

What do you think happens if Russia wins the war? If they take out the Ukrainian government and install their own puppet government?

Give it up. This is childish nonsense