NATO - stop being so fucking timid!!!!

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
8,872
3,667
I think that is probably breaking a few laws of physics if it's going to accelerate up to (1) Mach 3-4 at (2) short range and then also (3) dive down. Maybe pick 2 out of those 3 and be happy.  It also just doesn't have much range, 7 km. Good for transport landing craft though.

I know that it's an escalation but we did No Fly Zones in Bosnia (thank you, Bill!) and in Libya (thank you, Hillary!). You can ask Milošević or Muammar about them but you might find it a one sided conversation.
I was thinking of shooting from a bluff, as some perspectives of Russian ships have been photographed have shown a modest "down angle" that might make a hit near the waterline possible.

And I'm just quoting the description of the Starstrike missile. I'm not awarding it some new "top attack" feature.

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,764
2,196
Back to the desert
I agree with you, but there’s a few hang ups. I was chatting with my cousin who spent most of his career driving tanks. We can’t just hand over a bunch of M1’s and expect them to drive them. It’s no different than asking you to fly a MIG. I have no doubt you could, but you probably wouldn’t be very effective in combat. 
I wasn't talking handing over M1s.....  I'm sure there is still plenty of Soviet era armor and SAMs and Migs in use by the fomer Siviet Bloc Eastern Euro NATO members that they would likely be more than happy to get rid of in exchange for some shiny new Abrams, F-15s and Patriot missiles.

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,764
2,196
Back to the desert
Heavy artillery fire bases are sitting ducks, gives the Russian military the sort of target they really wish the Ukrainians would present. Not going to outnumber Russian artillery next door to Russia. This is an infantry company leader's war.  
Fair.  But I think some mobile MLRS or similar would be more than enough to harrass the Russian Heavy Arty fire bases.  We know, and therefore the Ukes know, where those all are.  Wouldn't be that hard to do some shoot and scoot tactics.  Keep their heads down fo shizzle.  

 

Monkey

Super Anarchist
11,064
2,693
I wasn't talking handing over M1s.....  I'm sure there is still plenty of Soviet era armor and SAMs and Migs in use by the fomer Siviet Bloc Eastern Euro NATO members that they would likely be more than happy to get rid of in exchange for some shiny new Abrams, F-15s and Patriot missiles.
I’d be cool with that exchange. Best garage sale ever!

Edit:  I had the rare experience for a civilian of driving a Bradley. They handle terribly!  I can’t imagine how a tank corners!

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,764
2,196
Back to the desert
You think that NATO isn't doing enough, others worry that NATO is working too much already out of scope. But so far, there is no global thermonuclear war, so I think NATO is doing fine by erring on the side of caution. When it comes to escalation, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana.
What part of the past are we supposed to be remembering?  As I said, Russia was directly helping N. Vietnam with advanced fighters and SAMs - and that did not trigger a Thermonuclear war.  I don't think it will this time around either.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
What part of the past are we supposed to be remembering?  As I said, Russia was directly helping N. Vietnam with advanced fighters and SAMs - and that did not trigger a Thermonuclear war.  I don't it this time around either.  
The escalation is what we need to avoid. We're finally moving away from this Cold War bullshit, why get back into it? Ukraine is doing well by most accounts, they came out of the last invasion somewhat leaderless, riddled with corruption, and half-broke. Obviously it would have been better were they not bombed and attacked, but they were, and they've done well. So if NATO escalated this, would it save Ukranian lives? I can't see how escalating a war with a superpower will save lives, it historically tends to cost more lives ... and of course, with the chance of a nuclear escalation.

As for the past we are supposed to remember ...

Kennedy_telegram1s.jpg


Kennedy_telegram1.jpg


 
Last edited by a moderator:

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,764
2,196
Back to the desert
I was thinking of shooting from a bluff, as some perspectives of Russian ships have been photographed have shown a modest "down angle" that might make a hit near the waterline possible.

And I'm just quoting the description of the Starstrike missile. I'm not awarding it some new "top attack" feature.
Nah, MANPADS are typically very tiny warheads.  Good for fragile airplanes, but not great against warships.  It might scratch the anchor, but that's about it.

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,764
2,196
Back to the desert
It's a good thought, but not a great airplane to be flying around in a contested airspace w/ Fighter, SAM and Manpad environment.  I think your survival chances would be measured in hours vs days or weeks.  

 

Ease the sheet.

ignoring stupid people is easy
20,356
2,353
Ukes already have a heap of tanks.

sams and ssms are where it's at.

It wouldn't be hard to send a 100 ukes to Poland for some training....

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,764
2,196
Back to the desert
The escalation is what we need to avoid. We're finally moving away from this Cold War bullshit, why get back into it? Ukraine is doing well by most accounts, they came out of the last invasion somewhat leaderless, riddled with corruption, and half-broke. Obviously it would have been better were they not bombed and attacked, but they were, and they've done well. So if NATO escalated this, would it save Ukranian lives? I can't see how escalating a war with a superpower will save lives, it historically tends to cost more lives ... and of course, with the chance of a nuclear escalation.

As for the past we are supposed to remember ...



Yeah, and your example completely validates and supports my point.  You call Putin's bluff, just like JFK called Kruschev's.  Putin is not a madman.  The Mutual Assured Destruction of your homeland is not worth a pissant country like the Ukraine.  Putin knows this and is sitting on a 7-2 Club/diamond with an A-K-K of hearts/diamond on the flop and is raising.  He's bluffing sure as shit and is expecting NATO to fold.  Biden's Anna Kornakova should not only be calling here, but raising.  Not time to go all in yet.  But if he strings out the bet a bit more, he can catch putin with his pants down.  Just need a bit of pressure here.  And a cool Poker face.  I think Joe can play poker and Nuclear brinksmanship.  Trump, otoh, would likely blurt out "Cofeve" and fold like a little girl.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
Yeah, and your example completely validates and supports my point.  You call Putin's bluff, just like JFK called Kruschev's.  Putin is not a madman.  The Mutual Assured Destruction of your homeland is not worth a pissant country like the Ukraine.  Putin knows this and is sitting on a 7-2 Club/diamond with an A-K-K of hearts/diamond on the flop and is raising.  He's bluffing sure as shit and is expecting NATO to fold.  Biden's Anna Kornakova should not only be calling here, but raising.  Not time to go all in yet.  But if he strings out the bet a bit more, he can catch putin with his pants down.  Just need a bit of pressure here.  And a cool Poker face.  I think Joe can play poker and Nuclear brinksmanship.  Trump, otoh, would likely blurt out "Cofeve" and fold like a little girl.
I'm with you on this. I think that Putin is calculating, albeit poorly. He is perhaps the most cash-rich persons in the world, and his process doesn't necessarily relate to what someone like you or I would understand.

The danger with escalation isn't so much about Putin at this point, but about the escalation itself. Why "play" with "nuclear brinksmanship"? What benefit would the people of Ukraine get out of an escalation there? This isn't about the USA and Russia, it's about a poorly thought Russian adventure, and the people of the Ukraine are not only winning, but they may reform the way Russia has to interact with its neighbors. Why potentially destroy that success with an escalation that turns the Urkanian insurgency into a more conventionally-fought war? I can't see how this could possibly save Ukranian lives, can you?

It isn't that JFK called Kruschev's bluff, but rather that the USA and USSR were on the edge of a nuclear war. Bertrand Russel opened the pathway of a conversation between the two men and that led to an agreement. The USA-Canada-Mexico bloc is well-positioned to be that intermediary between Russia and Europe. We're all members of NATO but we have enough distance from it to think rationally just as Russel had in London and in the uneviable position of being friends with both men.

The success of war is no longer escalation. It is de-escalation. And if we can't close our eyes and envision our children and grandchildren burned to a cinder in a nuclear fireball, then we have no place in the "nuclear brinksmanship" game that you want.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mrleft8

Super Anarchist
27,401
4,043
Suwanee River
I’d be cool with that exchange. Best garage sale ever!

Edit:  I had the rare experience for a civilian of driving a Bradley. They handle terribly!  I can’t imagine how a tank corners!
Ever drive a bulldozer? with the blade all the way up? Sideways on a steep hill?

I have done all of that except the sideways on a steep hill part. I'm stupid, but not that stupid.

 

Lark

Supper Anarchist
9,633
1,784
Ohio
Something like this? 



Don't see why not. Surely there's a lot of aged or semi-aged fighter jocks who would volunteer in the EU. The planes could then be Western designs, drawn from NATO member states reserves and "lend leased" to Ukraine. 
We did end up in an all out war with Japan that escalated to nukes.   Maybe that bit of history isn’t the best one to repeat.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
We did end up in an all out war with Japan that escalated to nukes.   Maybe that bit of history isn’t the best one to repeat.
The Atomic Bombing of Japan:
A failure for the people of Japan, but a success for their leaders. For us, a success for the people of the USA, but a failure for our leaders.

The Cuban Missile Crisis:
A success for the people of USSR, a success for their leaders. A success for the people of the USA, a success for our leaders. This success was thanks to the people and leaders of Europe.

The War in the Ukraine:
It isn't over yet, we don't know. But if the people and the leaders of Europe and Russia wish to have success as we had with the Cuban Missile Crisis, then as Europe became the intermediary for peace, now the North American Leaders and people need to become the intermediary for peace.

We can't think like Europeans in this war. We can't think like Democratics or Republicans or conservatives or liberals. Politics mean nothing in the face of global misery. We just have to think like humans who want a better world for our children, and for European children.

If the North American Leaders Summit can discuss the relative nonsense of COVID, then the North American Leaders Summit can convene to discuss the "nuclear brinksmanship" that too many Americans on both the left and the right now advocate. The Europeans get a pass on being miserable global citizens in this, they are passionately involved. But us Americans in the North and South, we can't miss the opportunity to do for Europe in the Ukranian War what Europe did for us in the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Aussies and Africans can step up as well. For the last fifty-some years, Europeans have gradually accrued a currency of being rational and careful. And now they have used up every bit of that currency and then some. We need to help those metric-using, pastry-baking motherfuckers from blowing up the whole damned world like they nearly did in WWII and then we gleefully copied them in Japan.

3000.jpeg





 
Last edited by a moderator:

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
IF russia walks away from this shit then the world as we knew it is finished .
It will be the last death rattle of the Cold War. And from then on, Russia will forget about having to divert resources away from their attentions in the Economic War. Russia will finally be free to compete with Germany using the energy and manufacturing at their disposal, and then drawing immigration from Africa, especially immigrants trained by Chinese industry. Within our lifetime, we will see Russia surpass Italy, France and Britain as a serious economic contender to Germany.

We will continue to fund NATO far more than we rationally need, and the EU and Russia will benefit from the USA's reduced ability to compete. We will remain oblivious to our waning economic power and continue to hand over markets to China.

 
Last edited by a moderator:




Top