Jump to content

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


Tiberius

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Maybe when this is over we can get Zelensky to implore Biden and the Democrat controlled Congress to get some funds to fight the drug cartels at our border? 

 

Legalize drugs and the cartels go out of business overnight, AND we don't have pour more money down the black hole that is the forever war on drugs! 

 

I've got my D.A.R.E t-shirt somewhere, let's dust that thing off.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 Americans’ support for ‘no fly zone’ declines once they know what that is

 

“Supporters of the no-fly zone were at 40 percent of those polled, while opponents were at 25 percent.

 

However, Yahoo! News reports, the numbers switched once respondents were told that a no-fly zone means that NATO would engage in war with Russia, shooting down their planes over Ukrainian air space.”

 

https://thepostmillennial.com/americans-no-fly-zone-support-declines-poll

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are kind of old but they can stop APC and trucks if not tanks. We just sent thousands of them 

 

The AT4[a] is a Swedish 84 mm (3.31 in) unguided, man-portable, single-shot, disposable, recoilless smoothbore anti-tank weapon built by Saab Bofors Dynamics (previously Bofors Anti-Armour Systems).[5][unreliable source?] Saab has had considerable sales success with the AT4, making it one of the most common light anti-tank weapons in the world.

The name AT4 is a word play on the 84 mm caliber of the weapon, (84) 'eighty four' being a homophone of 'A-T-4'.[6] The name also doubles as an alpha-phonetic word play on the weapon's role due to "AT" being a common military abbreviation for "Anti-Tank".[7] The name was created for export purposes as the nickname "eighty-four" already was a common English nickname for the Carl Gustaf 8.4cm recoilless rifle after its caliber.[6]

The AT4 is intended to give infantry units a means to destroy or disable armoured vehicles and fortifications, although it is generally ineffective against current modern main battle tanks (MBTs), especially those with reactive armor. The launcher and projectile are manufactured prepacked and issued as a single unit of ammunition, with the launcher discarded after a single use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

These are kind of old but they can stop APC and trucks if not tanks. We just sent thousands of them 

 

The AT4[a] is a Swedish 84 mm (3.31 in) unguided, man-portable, single-shot, disposable, recoilless smoothbore anti-tank weapon built by Saab Bofors Dynamics (previously Bofors Anti-Armour Systems).[5][unreliable source?] Saab has had considerable sales success with the AT4, making it one of the most common light anti-tank weapons in the world.

The name AT4 is a word play on the 84 mm caliber of the weapon, (84) 'eighty four' being a homophone of 'A-T-4'.[6] The name also doubles as an alpha-phonetic word play on the weapon's role due to "AT" being a common military abbreviation for "Anti-Tank".[7] The name was created for export purposes as the nickname "eighty-four" already was a common English nickname for the Carl Gustaf 8.4cm recoilless rifle after its caliber.[6]

The AT4 is intended to give infantry units a means to destroy or disable armoured vehicles and fortifications, although it is generally ineffective against current modern main battle tanks (MBTs), especially those with reactive armor. The launcher and projectile are manufactured prepacked and issued as a single unit of ammunition, with the launcher discarded after a single use.

I’ll say one thing Tibs….you REALLY like your weaponry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Westside said:

Tibs and Putin have a lot in common 

I’ve got to assume he’s a veteran and for his service I’ll thank him…but yikes he REALLY likes military weaponry. 

Just now, Tiberius said:

Peace through superior firepower 

So I’ll assume you’d have gone WR instead of Von Miller? 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

I’ve got to assume he’s a veteran and for his service I’ll thank him…but yikes he REALLY likes military weaponry. 

If he served in the military then he is a traitor to this country and a blemish on the good men and women who served this country proudly.

  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

The number of Russian troops killed three weeks into Moscow's war on Ukraine has reached 14,000, according to the Ukrainian military.

The General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine announced the estimated death toll Thursday morning and added that the invading forces have lost nearly 450 tanks, more than 1,400 armored fighting vehicles, roughly 200 artillery systems, dozens of salvo fire systems, anti-aircraft systems, military aircraft, and helicopters, and fewer than a dozen unmanned aerial vehicles.

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/russian-troop-losses-in-ukraine-continue-to-mount-14-000

 

14,000? If that's true it's no wonder Putin is trying to get Syrians to fight 

10 minutes ago, Westside said:

If he served in the military then he is a traitor to this country and a blemish on the good men and women who served this country proudly.

Go change your diaper 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Peace through superior firepower 

 

Always sounds attractive.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Always sounds attractive.

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

As long as there rulers like Putin out there, we will need new and improved weapon systems to confront them 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

As long as there rulers like Putin out there, we will need new and improved weapon systems to confront them 

 

I'm kind of up to speed on at least the air and air delivered stuff, and we've got very interesting "new and improved" systems, and are working on even cooler stuff, like drone wingmen.

 

What is important is that we prevent them from getting into the wrong hands, something that was incredibly poorly handled when we quit Afghanistan.

Ultimately that stuff ends up in the middle east somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

10 Realities of Ukraine

by Victor Davis Hanson

 

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/03/17/10_realities_of_ukraine_147345.html

 

One -- Reassuring an enemy what one will not do ensures that the enemy will do just that and more. Unpredictability and occasional enigmatic silence bolster deterrence. But President Joe Biden's predictable reassurance to Russian President Vladimir Putin that he will show restraint means Putin likely will not.

 

Two -- No-fly zones don't work in a big-power, symmetrical standoff. In a cost-benefit analysis, they are not worth the risk of shooting down the planes of a nuclear power. They usually do little to stop planes outside of such zones shooting missiles into them. Sending long-range, high-altitude anti-aircraft batteries to Ukraine to deny Russian air superiority is a far better way

 

 

 

Well worth taking the time to read.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

10 Realities of Ukraine

by Victor Davis Hanson

 

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/03/17/10_realities_of_ukraine_147345.html

 

One -- Reassuring an enemy what one will not do ensures that the enemy will do just that and more. Unpredictability and occasional enigmatic silence bolster deterrence. But President Joe Biden's predictable reassurance to Russian President Vladimir Putin that he will show restraint means Putin likely will not.

 

Two -- No-fly zones don't work in a big-power, symmetrical standoff. In a cost-benefit analysis, they are not worth the risk of shooting down the planes of a nuclear power. They usually do little to stop planes outside of such zones shooting missiles into them. Sending long-range, high-altitude anti-aircraft batteries to Ukraine to deny Russian air superiority is a far better way

 

 

 

Well worth taking the time to read.

 

 

I find the argument that if we were stilled bogged down in Afghanistan Put8n would not have invaded just pure spin. Putin’s been doing wars for decades now. This guy is just a spin Doctor 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

You’re on here night and day since the invasion blathering on and on about every sort of weapons system and you didn’t think EVERYONE on here noticed? Really now? Oh brother. 

That gives you a right to make things up, ok, so what. Keep lying 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

That gives you a right to make things up, ok, so what. Keep lying 

What gives you the right to call people putin supporters, racists, nazis and whatever else you called us?  If you're going to dish it out, you better be prepared to take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...