User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/27/2021 8:27:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: The_Beer_Slayer]
This is now the active "shit News links, thanks to BerettaGuy: Originally Posted By BerettaGuy: LINKS TO UKRAINIAN NEWS SOURCES IN ENGLISH Kyiv Post Ukrainian News UKRInform EUROMAIDEN PRESS New Voice of Ukraine Kyiv Independent Ukraine World InterFax Ukraine UATV Ukrainian Journal Official Website of the President of Ukraine Ukrainian Ministry of Defense Save these links. I can't post all the headlines like I've done in the past - too much news and too often. Please @ me with additional stuff to be added here. I don't currently have time to properly curate this thread otherwise. New news link c/o berettaguy: Ukrainian Pravda https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/ Stop fake, anti - disinformation site: https://www.stopfake.org/en/main/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 2:57:03 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By _disconnector_: Maybe - but is the US government willing to bet the population of NYC or DC against that? What are you on about? NYC or DC are not going to see a nuke out of this. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:00:34 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lorazepam: What are you on about? NYC or DC are not going to see a nuke out of this. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lorazepam: Originally Posted By _disconnector_: Maybe - but is the US government willing to bet the population of NYC or DC against that? What are you on about? NYC or DC are not going to see a nuke out of this. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:01:10 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kipple: Serious question: How could that be done without RU lobbing some nukes toward us or whoever? If we launch nukes first targeted at their launch points, they will see ours and launch as well. Could we get aircraft into their airspace and strike without them seeing us coming and shoot down the aircraft? I'm assuming there would be no way for us to get people on the ground to the deed. I'm also assuming we don't have some sort of star trek lasers on satellites that could do it. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just not comprehending how we could first strike their nukes. Good question. We'd have to find and track their missile subs and take them out simultaneously. At the same time strike their land based nukes, either conventionally or by nukes. Same with their mobile launchers. At the same time, surge and focus our anti-missile systems 110% for the inevitable RU nukes that get launched. Some would get through. No way in hell Xiden would go along with this. And at this point I agree. Pre-emptive strike on Russia is not on the table in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:05:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AlmightyTallest]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lorazepam: I personally am not worried about the mobile launched nukes. I doubt they have been maintained for the years they have been bouncing around in those shitty trucks. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lorazepam: Originally Posted By Jack67: Yep, it is the mobile ground launchers that are the problem. Everything else can be hit within their reaction window. Our interception capabilities are not up to that task yet, and Europe’s are almost nonexistent. I personally am not worried about the mobile launched nukes. I doubt they have been maintained for the years they have been bouncing around in those shitty trucks. Not only that, but ever notice in the videos of them driving out to their launch points that they are pretty straight pathways carefully manicured to not have shrubs and trees in their way? Nah, we'd never see that on satellite and SAR imagery from billions of dollars of spacecraft and technology dedicated just for finding those.  What interests me is that EVERY guided Russian weapon they took apart in this war has used commercial chips and parts. Just food for thought, but we celebrated over 400 SM-3 exoatmospheric interceptors made. They mostly go on mobile Aegis ships, and Aegis ashore bases in Poland, and Romania, and the Japanese navy. These are advertised as ascent and midcourse phase. Over 500 SM-6 terminal phase Interceptors. Hundreds of THAAD rounds, 10,000 Patriot rounds. CHAMP and HiJinks emp cruise missiles, etc. It was done quietly, but we've been eroding the rules of MAD for awhile, and it is accelerating. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:07:41 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fadedsun: No, he needs to stay. That’s his country now. He abandoned the USA. He wanted to be Russian, now time to do Russian things, like be used as a bulletproof sponge in a war of empire building. Agreed. We don't need him back. He needs to stay and fight for his new country now. He has the mindset of a Russian, and he is a Russian now. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:08:26 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta: Dude was just flexing and showing off his pro player skills. Next up, the 360 noscope! With a solid hit on a hard target, would it still not fire? I have never fired an RPG but I always assumed those safety caps (I've only seen plastic) are only for normal handling and transport safety and hitting the side of a tank or wall will go boom. Standing by for an RPG SME. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:10:51 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By _disconnector_: The original discussion for the thread that I'm responding to was a US first strike against Russian nukes. If we screwed that up NYC and/or DC *would* get launched on. Maybe. Or we might destroy everything before they can do shit. Kind of irrelevant, nukes are not going to fly over this. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:13:03 PM EDT
[#8]
1 hr ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:15:46 PM EDT
[#9]
Cool.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:17:36 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MelGibsonEnthusiast: Apparently these 18 HIMARS won't get to Ukraine for about a year or two. The AP article says they're contracts for purchases. Needs confirmation but if it is like some of those purchases to date, units from existing US stocks go to Ukraine, then new production units back-fill US forces (and we have enough to do that without issue). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:19:19 PM EDT
[#11]
24min ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:19:29 PM EDT
[#12]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:20:27 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Not only that, but ever notice in the videos of them driving out to their launch points that they are pretty straight pathways carefully manicured to not have shrubs and trees in their way? Nah, we'd never see that on satellite and SAR imagery from billions of dollars of spacecraft and technology dedicated just for finding those. What interests me is that EVERY guided Russian weapon they took apart in this war has used commercial chips and parts. Just food for thought, but we celebrated over 400 SM-3 exoatmospheric interceptors made. They mostly go on mobile Aegis ships, and Aegis ashore bases in Poland, and Romania, and the Japanese navy. These are advertised as ascent and midcourse phase. Over 500 SM-6 terminal phase Interceptors. Hundreds of THAAD rounds, 10,000 Patriot rounds. CHAMP and HiJinks emp cruise missiles, etc. It was done quietly, but we've been eroding the rules of MAD for awhile, and it is accelerating. This thread doesn’t need another hell yeah brother, but hell yeah brother |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:25:09 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GTLandser: Needs confirmation but if it is like some of those purchases to date, units from existing US stocks go to Ukraine, then new production units back-fill US forces (and we have enough to do that without issue). I was hoping that was the case. The UA get one now from existing stock and when a new one roles off the line, it replaces the one we gave them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:26:31 PM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:33:44 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lorazepam: I babysat nukes for a few years, I understand how it goes for us. We have a professional military. Drunken moron conscripts are not the same. Their equipment and maintenance suck. Supposedly we spend more on nuke maintenance than they spend on their entire military. And they have more nukes 
|
|
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:48:52 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zam18th: It's funny but I'm pretty sure it's fake. Comments turned off, auto translate unavailable, and the channel has 5 subscribers. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zam18th: Originally Posted By torstin: Originally Posted By trapsh00ter99: Originally Posted By AROKIE: Not sure if this has been posted.... the russian TV news guy, ol putins friend got called up for the draft and is having a shit fit, even kicks off the other guy on the show cause he called him a pussy and coward, lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcvJSKzW1hM  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcvJSKzW1hMIt's funny but I'm pretty sure it's fake. Comments turned off, auto translate unavailable, and the channel has 5 subscribers. I’m surprised NAFO hasn’t been doing this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:49:33 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Not only that, but ever notice in the videos of them driving out to their launch points that they are pretty straight pathways carefully manicured to not have shrubs and trees in their way? Nah, we'd never see that on satellite and SAR imagery from billions of dollars of spacecraft and technology dedicated just for finding those. What interests me is that EVERY guided Russian weapon they took apart in this war has used commercial chips and parts. Just food for thought, but we celebrated over 400 SM-3 exoatmospheric interceptors made. They mostly go on mobile Aegis ships, and Aegis ashore bases in Poland, and Romania, and the Japanese navy. These are advertised as ascent and midcourse phase. Over 500 SM-6 terminal phase Interceptors. Hundreds of THAAD rounds, 10,000 Patriot rounds. CHAMP and HiJinks emp cruise missiles, etc. It was done quietly, but we've been eroding the rules of MAD for awhile, and it is accelerating. I know (roughly - not a DoD insider) what we’ve done wrt interception. It’s fantastic and it’s something we’ve done very, very right instead of being complacent since 1991. But are you confident we could get all leakers from a first strike? Theoretically speaking. Even if the answer were “yes,” I’m not advocating we do that and no one is - but just as a probability exercise. My understanding was our combined interception capabilities weren’t there yet, but I’m not an expert. This is a good conversation to have, not a frightening one. Because it underscores our ability to prevent a Russian - or anyone’s - first-use. With MAD not an operable part of force and strike calculations, Russia becomes relatively impotent. Reminding them of that is very likely what the State Dept. has been doing recently. If we wanted to, we could prevent a Russian nuclear use by simply saying “we view putting Ukraine under our nuclear umbrella as a logical corollary to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.” It is quite possibly what has already been done quietly. Heck, we could make “The Budapest Corollary” a part of history more important than the Monroe Doctrine. |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:51:11 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lorazepam: Maybe. Or we might destroy everything before they can do shit. Kind of irrelevant, nukes are not going to fly over this. You really can't say that. It's always possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:52:37 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: I certainly agree, hoping some ATACMS are in that package. you reckon the lack of ATACMS in the aid package has more to do with not wanting the tech to potentially falling into russian hands (dud or shot down) or the official reason? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:54:01 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bama_Rebel: you reckon the lack of ATACMS in the aid package has more to do with not wanting the tech to potentially falling into russian hands (dud or shot down) or the official reason? They couldn't copy one anyway. Their electronics are mostly western components. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:56:59 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By burnka871: They couldn't copy one anyway. Their electronics are mostly western components Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By burnka871: Originally Posted By Bama_Rebel: you reckon the lack of ATACMS in the aid package has more to do with not wanting the tech to potentially falling into russian hands (dud or shot down) or the official reason? They couldn't copy one anyway. Their electronics are mostly western components They could sell one to the Chinese |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:57:25 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jack67: Heck, we could make “The Budapest Corollary” a part of history more important than the Monroe Doctrine. The US extending from Atlantic to Pacific is much more significant than Russia/Ukraine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 3:58:26 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mal_means_bad: They could sell one to the Chinese The Chinese that buy jet engines from the Russians because they can't metallurgy? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:04:21 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By burnka871: The Chinese that buy jet engines from the Russians because they can't metallurgy? |
|
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:04:53 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By burnka871: The Chinese that buy jet engines from the Russians because they can't metallurgy? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By burnka871: Originally Posted By Mal_means_bad: They could sell one to the Chinese The Chinese that buy jet engines from the Russians because they can't metallurgy? They were actually working with Ukraine a.fewnyeaes ago. Not sure if the tech got transferred. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:07:10 PM EDT
[#27]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:10:15 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mal_means_bad: The Chinese suck at jet engines, but they don't suck so bad at rockets and electronics True. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:11:22 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GLHX2112: This is what I am worried about. If the Russians are responsible for the Nord Pipeline bullshit, or not, the other Pipelines in use could be a tempting target. Specially when you celebrate the opening of a new one that was built to bypass The Russians. right after the other one was blown up a day or so previously. Standing by for shenanigans.  Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GLHX2112: Originally Posted By Zam18th:
This is what I am worried about. If the Russians are responsible for the Nord Pipeline bullshit, or not, the other Pipelines in use could be a tempting target. Specially when you celebrate the opening of a new one that was built to bypass The Russians. right after the other one was blown up a day or so previously. Standing by for shenanigans. That or the dumbass Russians accidentally sabotaged the wrong pipeline. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:12:29 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sq40: That or the dumbass Russians accidentally sabotaged the wrong pipeline. I'd believe this way before I believe the US did it haha |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:12:44 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jack67: I know (roughly - not a DoD insider) what we’ve done wrt interception. It’s fantastic and it’s something we’ve done very, very right instead of being complacent since 1991. But are you confident we could get all leakers from a first strike? Theoretically speaking. Even if the answer were “yes,” I’m not advocating we do that and no one is - but just as a probability exercise. My understanding was our combined interception capabilities weren’t there yet, but I’m not an expert. This is a good conversation to have, not a frightening one. Because it underscores our ability to prevent a Russian - or anyone’s - first-use. With MAD not an operable part of force and strike calculations, Russia becomes relatively impotent. Reminding them of that is very likely what the State Dept. has been doing recently. If we wanted to, we could prevent a Russian nuclear use by simply saying “we view putting Ukraine under our nuclear umbrella as a logical corollary to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.” It is quite possibly what has already been done quietly. Heck, we could make “The Budapest Corollary” a part of history more important than the Monroe Doctrine. I wonder if Russia's recently announced 'doomsday torpedo' the nuclear powered unmanned underwater drone armed with a big nuke that if launched would wind its way across the ocean and detonate (maybe a month later) near some city...was in recognition that Russia's nuclear deterrence (sub or land launched missiles) have been diminished or even thwarted? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:15:58 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zhukov: Niki has left Russia and is in Istanbul https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQUXH-uLzdAJust in the Nick of time too. I think he was planning it all along but didn’t want to raise any suspicions with the authorities so he made it seem as though he was actually gonna stay. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:21:51 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillydilly: Just in the Nick of time too. I think he was planning it all along but didn’t want to raise any suspicions with the authorities so he made it seem as though he was actually gonna stay. I figured and hoped he was going to do that. Good. |
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:23:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Zhukov]
[#34]
{CoC #7 removed - Z}
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:31:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Zhukov]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1969iggy: {CoC #7 removed - Z}  Top Gear - James May attempts to ignite a SS-18 Satan nuclear missle with a lighter |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:33:22 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zhukov: Niki has left Russia and is in Istanbul https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQUXH-uLzdAHe has more brains than I gave him credit for. Good for him. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:34:14 PM EDT
[#37]
 Ukraine’s counteroffensive explained Ukraine's Counteroffensive Explained- from 9/14, very interesting. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:36:26 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Grendelsbane: At three significantly separated locations roughly simultaneously? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Grendelsbane: Originally Posted By Javak: I suspect some of them may have fought in Afghanistan way back when. And my very improbable but not entirely impossible theory on the pipe line is that an untethered naval mine from god-knows-when-and-where had been rolling on the sea bed until it made contact with the pipe, and suddenly lost its will to live. At three significantly separated locations roughly simultaneously? The chances of three separate WWI sea mines drifting for over 100 years, collecting adjacent to three separate pipelines, and in unison spontaneously detonating in high order are low but they're never zero. Or something. Maybe. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:41:33 PM EDT
[#39]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:48:31 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lorazepam: MAD is a thing. After the fall of the soviet union, russia still has as many nukes as before still the same fucked up leadership, and nobody was afraid of nukes until now. They aren't going to launch them, because even if we don't, pretty much everyone else will let fly, since it is their chance to fuck shit up. I find it amusing that folks who didn't experience the cold war first hand are shitting their pants over nukes. Rule number 1, there isn't anything you can do to stop a nuke exchange, so worrying about is is counter productive. Rule number 2, Your best bet is to get vaporized right out of the gate. The aftermath will make "The Road" a happy book in comparison. No power, no supply chain, your preps will only last for so long, maybe longer than radiation sickness. People will be eating other people to survive. Those with power and wealth do not want to see that evaporate, and they will do all they can to keep it from happening. Having lived through the cold war, I too share a sense of “cant do anything about it so why worry”. I’m not afraid of a nuclear war as much as I am having to survive afterwards. I do feel like something is much different than before. The Soviet Union had hope and power during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That let them act rationally, even with a defeat on the issue. They were still growing and expanding as an empire. In the 70s and 80s, it was still a powerful entity, with a powerful army. It was starting to show cracks, and even had defeat in Afghanistan. But it was still rational. The fall of the Soviet Union was scary. We expertly negotiated the situation to keep the nukes secure through their crisis. But again, it was a Revolution with positive energy for a better future. Now we are seeing a failing dictatorship hanging on by a string. Their military is a laughing stock. They have no conventional power and their influence is nearly gone. Putin is surrounded by yes men, is old, and his health us in question. Never have the modern Russians had such a tenuous situation, backed largely into a self imposed corner, and are reliant on nuclear weapons to to be a deterrent or tactical option to keep in power. This is a truly unique situation for them, and us. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:48:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: BerettaGuy]
[#41]
 A footage of an attack by Ukrainian troops on a Russian column | Military Mind | TVP World Footage of an attack by Ukrainian troops on a Russian column | Military Mind | TVP World posted 45 minutes ago |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:50:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AlmightyTallest]
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jack67: I know (roughly - not a DoD insider) what we’ve done wrt interception. It’s fantastic and it’s something we’ve done very, very right instead of being complacent since 1991. But are you confident we could get all leakers from a first strike? Theoretically speaking. Even if the answer were “yes,” I’m not advocating we do that and no one is - but just as a probability exercise. My understanding was our combined interception capabilities weren’t there yet, but I’m not an expert. This is a good conversation to have, not a frightening one. Because it underscores our ability to prevent a Russian - or anyone’s - first-use. With MAD not an operable part of force and strike calculations, Russia becomes relatively impotent. Reminding them of that is very likely what the State Dept. has been doing recently. If we wanted to, we could prevent a Russian nuclear use by simply saying “we view putting Ukraine under our nuclear umbrella as a logical corollary to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.” It is quite possibly what has already been done quietly. Heck, we could make “The Budapest Corollary” a part of history more important than the Monroe Doctrine. Yes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:53:53 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MelGibsonEnthusiast: Apparently these 18 HIMARS won't get to Ukraine for about a year or two. The AP article says they're contracts for purchases. Why? We have 500+ of them. Let them get ones we have and we build the 18 newer for us. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:55:37 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fervid_dryfire: Maybe they want those tanks to be "in-house," and not thousands of miles away, once our next civil war invariably kicks off. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fervid_dryfire: Originally Posted By Zam18th: I just saw CarmelBytheSea's poll in gd about the US sending tanks to Ukraine. So far 60-40 say no, even if they pay for them.  I'm not going to read the thread. Just thought you'd get a chuckle out of gd doing gd things. Maybe they want those tanks to be "in-house," and not thousands of miles away, once our next civil war invariably kicks off. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:56:22 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: The US extending from Atlantic to Pacific is much more significant than Russia/Ukraine. The Monroe Doctrine didn't enable that; it was an engine in motion already. But the Monroe Doctrine did delimit what Euro powers did in the Caribbean basin. It was weak at best because it only honestly acknowledged the realpolitik that England and the alliance had de-facto kicked France and Spain to the curb during the Napoleonic Wars and already effectively taken them off the board. Since it aligned with UK policy, it got a free ride. The Monroe Doctrine is one of those things IMO with a big name and little real world effect, hence why I picked it as a comparison. ;) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 4:59:01 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By burnka871: Supposedly we spend more on nuke maintenance than they spend on their entire military. And they have more nukes Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By burnka871: Originally Posted By lorazepam: I babysat nukes for a few years, I understand how it goes for us. We have a professional military. Drunken moron conscripts are not the same. Their equipment and maintenance suck. Supposedly we spend more on nuke maintenance than they spend on their entire military. And they have more nukes I bet it’s also the easiest to get away with corruption and falsifying records. The only way you get caught (as a commander/supervisor) of skimming off the top and neglecting the Strategic Nuke Forces in Russia is if they try to actually use them…..and getting caught wouldn’t really be that big of an issue when that rolls around. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 5:01:57 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Yes. Well that's a game-changer. I thought that day was was coming but still in the future a decade at least. Wow. Yay for us (and you, and all the rest). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 5:07:00 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FdwrB_FWQA8gNWb?format=jpg&name=medium Titan drone jammer. https://bluehalo.com/product/titan/ https://bluehalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/TitanUx10BeautyShot-902x1024.jpg Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FdwrB_FWQA8gNWb?format=jpg&name=medium Titan drone jammer. https://bluehalo.com/product/titan/ https://bluehalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/TitanUx10BeautyShot-902x1024.jpg Titan™ establishes a hemisphere of protection well beyond line of sight in less than 5 minutes without operator training or calibration burden. Titan™ has been extensively tested, deployed, and operationally validated by dozens of military, government, and third-party labs to ensure mission success. Titan™ C-UAS equips any operator with immediate situational awareness and force protection in under 5 minutes. By harnessing industry-leading artificial intelligence and machine learning, Titan’s optionally-manned operation and autonomous countermeasure escalation turn any soldier or first responder into an effective C-UAS defender. That might work OK as long as you can keep the jamming outside of the frequencies your own forces are using. With both sides using COTS drones, that will be problematic. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 5:07:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Bama_Rebel]
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: I wonder if Russia's recently announced 'doomsday torpedo' the nuclear powered unmanned underwater drone armed with a big nuke that if launched would wind its way across the ocean and detonate (maybe a month later) near some city...was in recognition that Russia's nuclear deterrence (sub or land launched missiles) have been diminished or even thwarted? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Originally Posted By Jack67: I know (roughly - not a DoD insider) what we’ve done wrt interception. It’s fantastic and it’s something we’ve done very, very right instead of being complacent since 1991. But are you confident we could get all leakers from a first strike? Theoretically speaking. Even if the answer were “yes,” I’m not advocating we do that and no one is - but just as a probability exercise. My understanding was our combined interception capabilities weren’t there yet, but I’m not an expert. This is a good conversation to have, not a frightening one. Because it underscores our ability to prevent a Russian - or anyone’s - first-use. With MAD not an operable part of force and strike calculations, Russia becomes relatively impotent. Reminding them of that is very likely what the State Dept. has been doing recently. If we wanted to, we could prevent a Russian nuclear use by simply saying “we view putting Ukraine under our nuclear umbrella as a logical corollary to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.” It is quite possibly what has already been done quietly. Heck, we could make “The Budapest Corollary” a part of history more important than the Monroe Doctrine. I wonder if Russia's recently announced 'doomsday torpedo' the nuclear powered unmanned underwater drone armed with a big nuke that if launched would wind its way across the ocean and detonate (maybe a month later) near some city...was in recognition that Russia's nuclear deterrence (sub or land launched missiles) have been diminished or even thwarted? Poseidon Very possible Also very possible that it doesn't work as advertised |
|
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 9/28/2022 5:13:08 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bama_Rebel: Poseidon Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bama_Rebel: Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Originally Posted By Jack67: I know (roughly - not a DoD insider) what we’ve done wrt interception. It’s fantastic and it’s something we’ve done very, very right instead of being complacent since 1991. But are you confident we could get all leakers from a first strike? Theoretically speaking. Even if the answer were “yes,” I’m not advocating we do that and no one is - but just as a probability exercise. My understanding was our combined interception capabilities weren’t there yet, but I’m not an expert. This is a good conversation to have, not a frightening one. Because it underscores our ability to prevent a Russian - or anyone’s - first-use. With MAD not an operable part of force and strike calculations, Russia becomes relatively impotent. Reminding them of that is very likely what the State Dept. has been doing recently. If we wanted to, we could prevent a Russian nuclear use by simply saying “we view putting Ukraine under our nuclear umbrella as a logical corollary to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.” It is quite possibly what has already been done quietly. Heck, we could make “The Budapest Corollary” a part of history more important than the Monroe Doctrine. I wonder if Russia's recently announced 'doomsday torpedo' the nuclear powered unmanned underwater drone armed with a big nuke that if launched would wind its way across the ocean and detonate (maybe a month later) near some city...was in recognition that Russia's nuclear deterrence (sub or land launched missiles) have been diminished or even thwarted? Poseidon Supposedly containing a large cobalt jacketed nuke intended to generate a tsunami to make our coasts uninhabitable for decades. While Russians are sick enough to develop such a thing I wonder if it’s really just a fantasy weapon to freak out the libtards and give the puffers a stiffie. |
|
|
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.
