User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 9:32:13 PM EDT
[#1]
I hear the Taliban has around $100 billion in US military equipment for sale.
Or is it more than that? I cant keep up with the democrate fuck ups. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 9:36:49 PM EDT
[#2]
Were gonna need a bigger ammo fort.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 9:45:52 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is the normal pattern for an all-out war. The peacetime munitions industry can't possibly keep up with wartime demand. So the stockpiles get emptied and then the war grinds to a slowdown as both sides desperately try to produce enough ammunition to supply their troops. Over time, the production of munitions will increase, but it will never match the demand for the simple reason that, in a war, you need all the ammo you have and then some more. That is pretty much it, the nation’s defense establishment has determined it needs X amount to meet the threat requirements. X amount of ammunition cost Y and Y is too expensive, so they buy significantly less than X. Because the rate of production for the foreseeable future is much less than X, the industry does not do the CAPEX or maintain the staff to maintain the capability to produce X. A war starts, and you send a significant amount of ammo out and you realize that X was actually a very optimistic number, and realistically is 3-4X is what is needed, but industries already cannot build to X. Now you have to spend significantly more to bring the industrial base up to capability to replace not only what has been sent out but to bring you up to X if not X+. So you end up having less ammo on hand than you need for a potential future war and it will take you years to have it back on hand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 9:55:07 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The supposed greatest military in the world is a paper tiger. For all the billions spent, we are grossly unprepared for war. I am sure China is watching this, with eyes towards Taiwan.  I hate to admit it, but you're right. Expensive, flashy weapon systems are neat, but we've failed to maintain a more bread-and-butter mentality towards war. It's what happens when you allow retired generals to go to work for defense contractors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 10:02:50 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, wars require you to fire more ammunition than a traditional training year.  If we can't turn on the manufacturing and produce a million rounds per year, then we're clearly in need of increasing our production capability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 10:04:11 AM EDT
[#6]
Get to it Zoomers…
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 10:05:43 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's a Twitter thread out this week linked in the big thread that analyzed US budget documents, hundreds of millions of dollars are being allocated to upgrades, expansions, and entirely new factories for artillery shells and rockets, along with giant orders for ammunition. Hundreds of millions will barely move the needle. 1 155mm Excalibur costs over $100k. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 10:06:56 AM EDT
[#8]
1: I’m ok with this. I’m tired of being the world police. Also not exactly angry about a weakened military that will one day be used to crush its own citizens.
2: do we really need a huge military? Our biggest enemy for a century has shown that they can’t even take an area the size of New Jersey without embarrassing themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 10:07:36 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hundreds of millions will barely move the needle. 1 155mm Excalibur costs over $100k. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 10:19:45 AM EDT
[#10]
WW1 was the same. Took a couple years to ramp up production to required levels. Could we do it today? Eventually, but it would take way longer as we've destroyed our industrial base
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 10:34:49 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: no we aren't |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 10:35:02 AM EDT
[#12]
Russia seems to abandon gear and ammo like it's a national sport while keeping the Ukrainians supplied.
Video to Russians abandoning tanks for the Ukrainians to use |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 10:35:37 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: WW1 was the same. Took a couple years to ramp up production to required levels. Could we do it today? Eventually, but it would take way longer as we've destroyed our industrial base (They also bet wrong before the war, building an inventory of more immobile fortress cannon than portable field howitzers, which put them further behind) |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 10:37:07 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not really? Traditional artillery that shoots 155s has largely been made obsolete by air power and HIMARS, in both range and terminal effects. What Artillery is a vital part to the Ukraine war. Your assertion is as false as can be |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 10:41:41 AM EDT
[#15]
I use to work government contracting. If the .gov wanted something real bad, the materials to build it would show up on your loading dock the next morning no matter how long the manufacturer told you the delivery time was. Goons with guns would make sure it happened. They show up and slap paper on you and no one goes home until you deliver.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 10:45:28 AM EDT
[#16]
I wish I was confident those "running" this shitshow don't actually want the US to fall.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 11:37:52 AM EDT
[#17]
Any fight against China is going to be 95% naval/air war, and we aren't giving Ukraine any of those assets.
There's no situation where we would invade mainland China. At most there may be some limited amphib operations, but it's gonna be a fight for naval/air superiority. Whoever wins that wins the war. As for the ground-based weapons we're giving to Ukraine, they're being used for exactly the purpose that they were built for: fighting Russians. The fact that we aren't losing people doing it is just a bonus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 11:49:48 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's a Twitter thread out this week linked in the big thread that analyzed US budget documents, hundreds of millions of dollars are being allocated to upgrades, expansions, and entirely new factories for artillery shells and rockets, along with giant orders for ammunition. Congress just nixed the reporting requirement for military expenditures in the new NDAA. Soon we won’t know what they’re spending on what. They shot down the proposed tracking to end users too so we won’t know to whom. Lols. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 11:50:23 AM EDT
[#19]
The problem is that the US only thinks in terms of next gen everything. The higher the gen, the lower the volume. There needs to be some of the legacy munitions capability stood up in volume as a fallback as well as some infrastructure money spent on the newer weapons supply chains. Most of the ingredients for modern weapons systems are procured offshore. A halfway capable navy could really hurt us.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 11:53:53 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I hate to admit it, but you're right. Expensive, flashy weapon systems are neat, but we've failed to maintain a more bread-and-butter mentality towards war. It's what happens when you allow retired generals to go to work for defense contractors. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The supposed greatest military in the world is a paper tiger. For all the billions spent, we are grossly unprepared for war. I am sure China is watching this, with eyes towards Taiwan. I hate to admit it, but you're right. Expensive, flashy weapon systems are neat, but we've failed to maintain a more bread-and-butter mentality towards war. It's what happens when you allow retired generals to go to work for defense contractors. Our weak link is people. 1. Short sighted, instant gratification , corrupt politicians. 2. Short sighted, instant gratification, mentally weak, narcissistic citizens, who possess no patriotism, or love of country, just, me, me, me, me attitudes. Those two groups have poisoned society and the military, military is infested with mentally weak gays, trannys, females, and weak soy males etc who in leadership positions cannot lead, and poison everything with their bullshit destructive sjw beliefs , and in lower levels the same shit, while using their special status to undermine strength, and combat effectiveness. ( obviously not all, but it’s a substantial number and growing daily ) Not to mention the citizens are so self absorbed they would not support a draft, nor enlist in usable numbers to fight any war, no matter how just it was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 12:01:33 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: WW1 was the same. Took a couple years to ramp up production to required levels. Could we do it today? Eventually, but it would take way longer as we've destroyed our industrial base The equipment / large numbers of quality equipment is a much easier fix than large numbers of soldiers to operate it, much less quality soldiers. Imho, we could not fight WWII again today if needed, as in fielding tens of millions of soldiers to fight, no matter how just / dire the war was. People today are too selfish, self absorbed, narcissistic, etc, zero chance you could get the needed numbers to fight ww2 today with the losers that infest this country today. ( obviously we still have good people here, just not enough to fight WWII again. ) Iv done polls before on arfcom, with a genocidal alien invasion, where 100% participation in draft gave the USA a 50/50 chance of survival , while less than 100% was a guaranteed loss, and if we lose, aliens would occupy every country within 2 years, humans extinct. Approx 25% of arfcom said they would draft dodge / encourage their kids to draft dodge to Canada. ( where after the aliens murdered their families, friends, etc in the USA , they too would be dead in Canada via those same aliens within 2 years max / humans extinct.   Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 12:06:36 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The supposed greatest military in the world is a paper tiger. For all the billions spent, we are grossly unprepared for war. I am sure China is watching this, with eyes towards Taiwan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 12:10:11 PM EDT
[#23]
This could explain why the Administration (note, I did NOT say "we") is now resorting to blowing up infrastructure...........
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 12:21:07 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Any fight against China is going to be 95% naval/air war, and we aren't giving Ukraine any of those assets. There's no situation where we would invade mainland China. At most there may be some limited amphib operations, but it's gonna be a fight for naval/air superiority. Whoever wins that wins the war. As for the ground-based weapons we're giving to Ukraine, they're being used for exactly the purpose that they were built for: fighting Russians. The fact that we aren't losing people doing it is just a bonus.  Attached FileBottom line is no one knows for sure, and we have historically sucked at predicted the nature of the fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 12:57:23 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not really? Traditional artillery that shoots 155s has largely been made obsolete by air power and HIMARS, in both range and terminal effects. Scale and cost don’t agree with that assessment. When you have one or a few targets, sure. In a large scale war, there won’t be enough available aircraft to service all of the targets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 4:54:23 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/56596/98CBC1FC-4E49-4CB0-9560-5E7B561C94A4_jpe-2543735.JPG Bottom line is no one knows for sure, and we have historically sucked at predicted the nature of the fight. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Any fight against China is going to be 95% naval/air war, and we aren't giving Ukraine any of those assets. There's no situation where we would invade mainland China. At most there may be some limited amphib operations, but it's gonna be a fight for naval/air superiority. Whoever wins that wins the war. As for the ground-based weapons we're giving to Ukraine, they're being used for exactly the purpose that they were built for: fighting Russians. The fact that we aren't losing people doing it is just a bonus. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/56596/98CBC1FC-4E49-4CB0-9560-5E7B561C94A4_jpe-2543735.JPG Bottom line is no one knows for sure, and we have historically sucked at predicted the nature of the fight. ... written likely around June 2001. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2022 4:56:53 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: no we aren't Was going to be my exact post. We have plenty of bangy explody goodies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 11:47:03 AM EDT
[#28]
Maintaining massive stocks of ordnance or excess production capacity is expensive, so it's not done in peacetime.
In every major war it's the same, it takes time to spool up production. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 11:54:21 AM EDT
[#29]
If we really care about Ukraine, we need to devote every resource and 4 trillion in our budget to them. This is the only path towards a secure green, diverse, inclusive, equitable, Globalist future. Super serious.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 3:12:25 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This has shit to do with U.S. preparation for war. We haven't even dipped into U.S. contingency supply. We've been sending over surplus and ramping up production a bit. What about the SPR? How far you gonna go with no gas? Its the lowest I think in 45 years now and going down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 3:14:42 PM EDT
[#31]
Not really...at least not in a way that matters.
No country is attack the US mainland with a military force. We are a gigantic island with nuclear weapons and budget AR's behind every blade of grass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 3:21:10 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The supposed greatest military in the world is a paper tiger. For all the billions spent, we are grossly unprepared for war. I am sure China is watching this, with eyes towards Taiwan. Amphib invasions are insanely hard and deadly. Much less with a country with highly centralized command trying to do that 100 mile long screw driver as it's called. With a military with zero combat experience on top of building its whole Naval tradition from scratch ..with nobody outside of China wanting to teach them how to be better using their Navy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 3:22:53 PM EDT
[#33]
Fortunately Russia has been supplying Ukraine quite nicely when they flea.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 3:38:38 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1: I’m ok with this. I’m tired of being the world police. Also not exactly angry about a weakened military that will one day be used to crush its own citizens. 2: do we really need a huge military? Our biggest enemy for a century has shown that they can’t even take an area the size of New Jersey without embarrassing themselves. George Washington warned against standing armies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 4:01:05 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Any fight against China is going to be 95% naval/air war, and we aren't giving Ukraine any of those assets. There's no situation where we would invade mainland China. At most there may be some limited amphib operations, but it's gonna be a fight for naval/air superiority. Whoever wins that wins the war. As for the ground-based weapons we're giving to Ukraine, they're being used for exactly the purpose that they were built for: fighting Russians. The fact that we aren't losing people doing it is just a bonus. Yes - this is 100% on. China? They can’t even produce reliable jet engines; they buy theirs from Russia; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_AL-31 They can’t figure out single-crystal turbine blade technology. And we have zero interest in invading China. Besides, they know they depend on trade with the US and EU. Notice how little they have helped their BFF Russia? As for The Evil Empire? Fuck Putin! He is a rabid dog and needs to be put down for the sake of the entire world. The weapons we send to Ukraine? - worth every penny. Support Ukraine! Crush Russia permanently!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 4:04:14 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/56596/98CBC1FC-4E49-4CB0-9560-5E7B561C94A4_jpe-2543735.JPG Bottom line is no one knows for sure, and we have historically sucked at predicted the nature of the fight. But in the case of China, that question is dictated largely by geography. Taiwan is an island. There's an ocean between us and China. There's no situation where we're going to invade mainland China, because that would absolutely be a loss for us no matter what. And we'd have no reason to do so anyway. The war for Taiwan will be determined by who can control the sea and air space in the region. If we control the sea and air, then China cannot launch or support an invasion. If China can control that sea and airspace, then they can launch and support an invasion. If we can enforce sea blockades at key points then we can strangle their economy rather quickly, but if we can't enforce such blockades, then their economy can cope somewhat. Point being though, it's all going to be determined by who rules the seas and air. There will be localized ground battles but it's not gonna be drawing from the same equipment pools that we're using to supply Ukraine. Unless we start giving Ukraine aircraft carriers, subs, and F35s, I'm not gonna worry about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 4:24:59 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Kind of are if they're talking about years to replenish what has been given to Ukraine. How did we go from non-stop warfare in which we were directly engaged in the middle east for literal decades to Ukraine is using it all up for us. Yeah, kinda not buying it either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 5:19:05 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How did we go from non-stop warfare in which we were directly engaged in the middle east for literal decades to Ukraine is using it all up for us. Yeah, kinda not buying it either. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Kind of are if they're talking about years to replenish what has been given to Ukraine. How did we go from non-stop warfare in which we were directly engaged in the middle east for literal decades to Ukraine is using it all up for us. Yeah, kinda not buying it either. War in the Middle East was a relatively low tempo and only required large expenditures occasionally, the current war in Ukrainian is near-peer combat that uses weapons at a significantly higher rate than during Counter Insurgency. It is also the type of combat the US leadership believes we will fight and the planner created Total Munition Requirements to support it. The TMRs basically say we need X amount to meet the threat requirements. X amount of ammunition cost Y and Y was too expensive, so we bought significantly less than X. Because the rate of production for the foreseeable future is much less than X, the industry did not do the CAPEX or maintain the staff to maintain the capability to produce X. A war starts, and you send a significant amount of ammo out and you realize that X was actually a very optimistic number, and realistically it is 3-4X is what is needed, but industries already cannot build to X. Now you have to spend significantly more to bring the industrial base up to capability to replace not only what has been sent out but to bring you up to X if not X+. That is how DoD can state it has less ammo on hand than it needs doe a potential future war and it will take years to have it back on hand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 5:22:56 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But in the case of China, that question is dictated largely by geography. Taiwan is an island. There's an ocean between us and China. There's no situation where we're going to invade mainland China, because that would absolutely be a loss for us no matter what. And we'd have no reason to do so anyway. The war for Taiwan will be determined by who can control the sea and air space in the region. If we control the sea and air, then China cannot launch or support an invasion. If China can control that sea and airspace, then they can launch and support an invasion. If we can enforce sea blockades at key points then we can strangle their economy rather quickly, but if we can't enforce such blockades, then their economy can cope somewhat. Point being though, it's all going to be determined by who rules the seas and air. There will be localized ground battles but it's not gonna be drawing from the same equipment pools that we're using to supply Ukraine. Unless we start giving Ukraine aircraft carriers, subs, and F35s, I'm not gonna worry about that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/56596/98CBC1FC-4E49-4CB0-9560-5E7B561C94A4_jpe-2543735.JPG Bottom line is no one knows for sure, and we have historically sucked at predicted the nature of the fight. But in the case of China, that question is dictated largely by geography. Taiwan is an island. There's an ocean between us and China. There's no situation where we're going to invade mainland China, because that would absolutely be a loss for us no matter what. And we'd have no reason to do so anyway. The war for Taiwan will be determined by who can control the sea and air space in the region. If we control the sea and air, then China cannot launch or support an invasion. If China can control that sea and airspace, then they can launch and support an invasion. If we can enforce sea blockades at key points then we can strangle their economy rather quickly, but if we can't enforce such blockades, then their economy can cope somewhat. Point being though, it's all going to be determined by who rules the seas and air. There will be localized ground battles but it's not gonna be drawing from the same equipment pools that we're using to supply Ukraine. Unless we start giving Ukraine aircraft carriers, subs, and F35s, I'm not gonna worry about that. You are assuming all the fight is in the SCS, the efforts are all in the prevention of gaining a lodgement and there will be no need to seize or retake territory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 5:33:33 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are assuming all the fight is in the SCS, the efforts are all in the prevention of gaining a lodgement and there will be no need to seize or retake territory. There will be no ground fight in mainland China. We are not going to invade it. The main ground fight will be in Taiwan. There may be other smaller fights in the south and east China sea islands. Korea may erupt. But the entire campaign will hinge upon who gains supremacy of the seas and air. If we win the air and sea battles, then the PRC invasion is over, as they won't be able to support the invasion logistically. If the PRC wins dominance, then they can support the invasion and prevent any meaningful outside interference. It really is that simple. As I said in the first post, it's gonna be 95% air/naval war and 5% land war. For us, that is; the PRC and ROC will have a different mix as they fight on Taiwan. But for us, we either win the naval/air war or that's it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 5:41:05 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wasn't that long ago we had to buy small arms ammo from Israel because we couldn't supply our soldiers...... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forced-to-import-bullets-from-israel-as-troops-use-250-000-for-every-rebel-killed-314944.html The US was still producing arms for the civilian market during that time in addition to importing it. If the "bullet" faucet were ever put in the full on position we would be walking on bullets. As it were, it was cheaper to buy the bullets from Israel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 5:42:58 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How did we go from non-stop warfare in which we were directly engaged in the middle east for literal decades to Ukraine is using it all up for us. Yeah, kinda not buying it either. It’s Russian propaganda designed to undermine US support for UA |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 5:43:58 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There will be no ground fight in mainland China. We are not going to invade it. The main ground fight will be in Taiwan. There may be other smaller fights in the south and east China sea islands. Korea may erupt. But the entire campaign will hinge upon who gains supremacy of the seas and air. If we win the air and sea battles, then the PRC invasion is over, as they won't be able to support the invasion logistically. If the PRC wins dominance, then they can support the invasion and prevent any meaningful outside interference. It really is that simple. As I said in the first post, it's gonna be 95% air/naval war and 5% land war. For us, that is; the PRC and ROC will have a different mix as they fight on Taiwan. But for us, we either win the naval/air war or that's it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You are assuming all the fight is in the SCS, the efforts are all in the prevention of gaining a lodgement and there will be no need to seize or retake territory. There will be no ground fight in mainland China. We are not going to invade it. The main ground fight will be in Taiwan. There may be other smaller fights in the south and east China sea islands. Korea may erupt. But the entire campaign will hinge upon who gains supremacy of the seas and air. If we win the air and sea battles, then the PRC invasion is over, as they won't be able to support the invasion logistically. If the PRC wins dominance, then they can support the invasion and prevent any meaningful outside interference. It really is that simple. As I said in the first post, it's gonna be 95% air/naval war and 5% land war. For us, that is; the PRC and ROC will have a different mix as they fight on Taiwan. But for us, we either win the naval/air war or that's it. Like I said, think outside of the SCS |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 5:48:11 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Like I said, think outside of the SCS Where? I already mentioned areas that might be contested outside of that. The fight will be over Taiwan. So what are you talking about? Where is the fight gonna be that'll draw on the same equipment pool that Ukraine does? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 6:02:39 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How did we go from non-stop warfare in which we were directly engaged in the middle east for literal decades to Ukraine is using it all up for us. Yeah, kinda not buying it either. Fighting barefoot goat farmers with rusty AKs and ZERO heavy weapons is a little different than a large conventional war going on in Ukraine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 7:06:23 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There will be no ground fight in mainland China. We are not going to invade it. The main ground fight will be in Taiwan. There may be other smaller fights in the south and east China sea islands. Korea may erupt. But the entire campaign will hinge upon who gains supremacy of the seas and air. If we win the air and sea battles, then the PRC invasion is over, as they won't be able to support the invasion logistically. If the PRC wins dominance, then they can support the invasion and prevent any meaningful outside interference. It really is that simple. As I said in the first post, it's gonna be 95% air/naval war and 5% land war. For us, that is; the PRC and ROC will have a different mix as they fight on Taiwan. But for us, we either win the naval/air war or that's it. 99% is going to be IO/Cyber |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 7:07:12 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Where? I already mentioned areas that might be contested outside of that. The fight will be over Taiwan. So what are you talking about? Where is the fight gonna be that'll draw on the same equipment pool that Ukraine does? Think about the yellow brick road. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 7:22:11 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 99% is going to be IO/Cyber And how much of that is going to hit the same equipment pools we're drawing on to give to Ukraine? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2022 7:27:57 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And how much of that is going to hit the same equipment pools we're drawing on to give to Ukraine? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 99% is going to be IO/Cyber And how much of that is going to hit the same equipment pools we're drawing on to give to Ukraine? The NDS is available on the web and the 2 pacing threat model was replaced by 1 primary, and 3 others to plan against. But there are many places outside the SCS where the fight is going to occur. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2022 9:39:38 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s Russian propaganda designed to undermine US support for UA Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How did we go from non-stop warfare in which we were directly engaged in the middle east for literal decades to Ukraine is using it all up for us. Yeah, kinda not buying it either. It’s Russian propaganda designed to undermine US support for UA “I do know that supporting Ukraine and stopping Russia is our finest moment of moral clarity since 1945 at least. We are on the side of the righteous this time, and that is good enough for me.” A wise man said that and I agree. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
