Politics

[Nature Boy]

View attachment 502752

nah, not smart enough

 

[Alistair]

Lol, ok. Nice of us to create some warehouse space for the military. I suppose the 80B we left for the Taliban is all "old" too?

Sadly not. That one was poorly handled.

But emptying out weapon systems that are ear marked for obsolescence and which the replacement for is already in development doesn't seem a terrible use of older technology. Especially if in doing so we can do damage to a hostile state and gain political goodwill.

On the Stinger;

"The original Stinger's reprogrammable microprocessor will become obsolete in 2023, and a service life extension will keep the Block I in service until 2030. With the arsenal declining from obsolescence, on 10 November 2020 the U.S. Army issued a request for information for a replacement MANPADS. The new system will be compatible with the Stinger Vehicle Universal Launcher used on the IM-SHORAD and be able to defeat fixed and rotary-wing aircraft, as well as Group 2 and 3 UAS as well or better than the Stinger. A contract for up to 8,000 missiles is planned to be awarded by 2026.[6][7] The request for information, to interested firms, only went out in April 2022.[8]"

Wiki, so a pinch of salt, but seems about accurate.

On the Javelin. That's newer, but has been in service since '96 and maybe (I don't actually know) isn't a counter to current generation main line units, so again, aging, even if not yet obsolescent.

 

[John Wasmuth]

No one has said that. Certainly not in this dialogue. What I have said, and subsequently illustrated, is how the accounting system works. Neither the US nor any other NATO partner of which I am aware has simply given Ukraine funds to buy weapons. The system does not work that way.

You obviously have no clue how the armaments business works within government or in the corporate sector. Because most of Ukraine's US weapons are provided through drawdown authority, these primarily represent stock that is placed in reserve to eventually be sold to an security assistance customer. The 100 M777 howitzers and HIMARS launchers we have provided are primarily deactivated weapons from the Marine Corps over the last several years. The residual value of those guns and launchers, as a potential military assistance case is then deducted from the authorization provided by congress. No they aren't a free - but they also no longer hold the value of a newly developed weapons system.

The Stinger is also a good example. Thank you for bringing up. All munitions have a shelf-life. Rockets and missiles are much shorter than dumb munitions. The GLMRS rockets, Stingers, Javelins etc are all our oldest inventory. Indeed providing them to Ukraine to use against Russians actually saves some costs. The shelf life of the average solid fuel, guided rocket is classified but it is significantly less than the expected lifespan of the average F-150. If it isn't used, depending upon the munition, it has to be rebuilt, or most often, demilitarized. Having Ukraine demil them at Russian expense is a win win - though perhaps not for the Russians.

See, first thing you do is try with the insults….. got way more than a clue on how it works. Your former rank means absolutely nothing to me. Since all you can do is insult anyone that doesn’t agree with you I’m done.

 

[Nature Boy]

Sadly not. That one was poorly handled.

But emptying out weapon systems that are ear marked for obsolescence and which the replacement for is already in development doesn't seem a terrible use of older technology. Especially if in doing so we can do damage to a hostile state and gain political goodwill.

On the Stinger;

"The original Stinger's reprogrammable microprocessor will become obsolete in 2023, and a service life extension will keep the Block I in service until 2030. With the arsenal declining from obsolescence, on 10 November 2020 the U.S. Army issued a request for information for a replacement MANPADS. The new system will be compatible with the Stinger Vehicle Universal Launcher used on the IM-SHORAD and be able to defeat fixed and rotary-wing aircraft, as well as Group 2 and 3 UAS as well or better than the Stinger. A contract for up to 8,000 missiles is planned to be awarded by 2026.[6][7] The request for information, to interested firms, only went out in April 2022.[8]"

Wiki, so a pinch of salt, but seems about accurate.

On the Javelin. That's newer, but has been in service since '96 and maybe (I don't actually know) isn't a counter to current generation main line units, so again, aging, even if not yet obsolescent.

My point was we re not just sending them old stuff only and if we were then why does the defense budget go up again last year? I'm pro military but pro grifting. Why are all these generals working for the defense industry? I would end that shit in ONE second if possible but nobody will do anything, to any lobbyist.

 

[Red Leg]

Who supports Russia here? I don't. You need to understand the USA did a coup in Ukraine in 2014 and installed a anti Russian guy. That seems fine but you likely have forgot that we planned to put nuclear missiles into Ukraine, about 10 minutes to Moscow. That started this new cold war and why did we provoke it? I'm not saying Putin or Russia are good, they are not. But starting this over BS and ignoring our real enemy is china is lol stupid. Russia can't do anything to the USA and in the meantime china has been cleaning our clock. Want to hurt Russia? Do what Trump did and pump a ton of oil and cripple their major export. But what has this idiot done? Started a war on fossil fuels and helped Russia, Venezuela, Iran and other horrible regimes that the US has famously called enemies. You're being played by this scam in my view.

Planning to put "nuclear missiles" in Ukraine is absolute right wing nut hysteria. There was never such a plan to do so.

While I am certain, that both the US government broadly and Central Intelligence specifically were thrilled by the outcome of the Dignity Revolution, it would come as a great surprise to Ukrainians that their largely spontaneous efforts to force out a Putin puppet were actually the nefarious machinations of the CIA.

I am always amused by the conspiracy crowd. In one narrative an all knowing, all seeing fill in the blank agency manipulates the lives of millions. A few paragraphs of podcasts later, the incompetence of American intelligence agencies lead to fill in the blank disaster. And of course because they are clandestine, they are the perfect subject for either narrative.

But I do indeed believe the revolution was of direct causative effect with regard to Putin's decisions in 2014. Subsequently, our lack of reaction to that and the ever accelerating European shift of Ukrainian focus and outlook were intolerable to Putin. Not because of imaginary US nuclear weapons, but because a thriving, European democracy on Russia's border represented a threat to his continuing despotic rule.

 

[Nature Boy]

No one has said that. Certainly not in this dialogue. What I have said, and subsequently illustrated, is how the accounting system works. Neither the US nor any other NATO partner of which I am aware has simply given Ukraine funds to buy weapons. The system does not work that way.

You obviously have no clue how the armaments business works within government or in the corporate sector. Because most of Ukraine's US weapons are provided through drawdown authority, these primarily represent stock that is placed in reserve to eventually be sold to an security assistance customer. The 100 M777 howitzers and HIMARS launchers we have provided are primarily deactivated weapons from the Marine Corps over the last several years. The residual value of those guns and launchers, as a potential military assistance case is then deducted from the authorization provided by congress. No they aren't a free - but they also no longer hold the value of a newly developed weapons system.

The Stinger is also a good example. Thank you for bringing up. All munitions have a shelf-life. Rockets and missiles are much shorter than dumb munitions. The GLMRS rockets, Stingers, Javelins etc are all our oldest inventory that is being provided. Indeed providing them to Ukraine to use against Russians actually saves some costs. The shelf life of the average solid fuel, guided rocket is classified but it is significantly less than the expected lifespan of the average F-150. If it isn't used, depending upon the munition, it has to be rebuilt, or most often, demilitarized. Having Ukraine demil them at Russian expense is a win win - though perhaps not for the Russians.

Oh yeah? You think they can't sell them? There are videos out there of them selling them to Armenians for example. Regardless, read up on the Pandora papers, which details Zelensky and crews admitted offshore bank accounts. Also, explain how this works if not from cash?


Long-Term Military Support ($10.4 billion): This consists of money that Ukraine can use to buy new weapons, mostly from the United States but also elsewhere

This is just 1 bucket of traditional FA, all of which are not weapons. I read 34B is traditional. Additionally, it somehow costs 3.8B to house 10K US soliders overe there. lmao. just another ripoff. I wonder if anybody makes any money that is not grifted from the US taxpayer. Clintons worth 250M selling uranium and doing speeches and selling out the USA.

 

[Red Leg]

See, first thing you do is try with the insults….. got way more than a clue on how it works. Your former rank means absolutely nothing to me. Since all you can do is insult anyone that doesn’t agree with you I’m done.

You are correct in a sense. I have little patience with wrong assumptions based on insufficient information. I have no idea your line of work, but I would anticipate you have little patience with someone with no experience in it were to try and to tell you how it actually works.

I have simply offered explanations about how the weapons' and munitions' systems acquisition process actually operates between congress, and the executive branch. That process does not seem to match a lot of preconceived or widely shared narratives on the farther edges of the right. I am simply trying to provide a set of facts with which to balance that narrative.

 

[shootist~]

Just my opinion, but based on the number of posts in such a short time, it appears Nature Boy is getting help from Russian Bots.

 

[Nature Boy]

Planning to put "nuclear missiles" in Ukraine is absolute right wing nut hysteria. There was never such a plan to do so.

While I am certain, that both the US government broadly and Central Intelligence specifically were thrilled by the outcome of the Dignity Revolution, it would come as a great surprise to Ukrainians that their largely spontaneous efforts to force out a Putin puppet were actually the nefarious machinations of the CIA.

I am always amused by the conspiracy crowd. In one narrative an all knowing, all seeing fill in the blank agency manipulates the lives of millions. A few paragraphs of podcasts later, the incompetence of American intelligence agencies lead to fill in the blank disaster. And of course because they are clandestine, they are the perfect subject for either narrative.

But I do indeed believe the revolution was of direct causative effect with regard to Putin's decisions in 2014. Subsequently, our lack of reaction to that and the ever accelerating European shift of Ukrainian focus and outlook were intolerable to Putin. Not because of imaginary US nuclear weapons, but because a thriving, European democracy on Russia's border represented a threat to his continuing despotic rule.

lol

The United States missile defense complex in Poland, also called the European Interceptor Site (EIS), was a planned (but never built) American missile defense base.

 

[Red Leg]

Oh yeah? You think they can't sell them? There are videos out there of them selling them to Armenians for example. Regardless, read up on the Pandora papers, which details Zelensky and crews admitted offshore bank accounts. Also, explain how this works if not from cash?

View attachment 502753

Battlefields are indeed wasteful places. I have no doubt any number of munitions and small arms (NATO and Russian) will find their way onto the black market. It is a giant step to conclude Ukraine is not diligently employing the weaponry they have been provided as effectively as possible against the Russia's invasion.

And whatever is leaked off the battlefields of Ukraine is a pittance compared to what we left the Taliban in Afghanistan. That debacle is indeed worth additional review.

And no. The US government does not provide the Ukrainian government cash to buy weapon systems. US weapons are provided against the Congressional allocation, and direct contractor provided weapons are provided through DOD contracts written against that allocation. Even the NSAMS ADA system which is a joint Norwegian US project are being provided on DOD contract through Raytheon. Ukraine is not buying them with treasury dollars.

lol

The United States missile defense complex in Poland, also called the European Interceptor Site (EIS), was a planned (but never built) American missile defense base.

Jeez. Read what you posted. Yes there was planning to put mid-course interceptors in Poland. You do realize that Poland is a NATO member and is not Ukraine don't you? The interceptors also use a conventional warhead - not a nuke. Their placement there was to potentially engage Iranian missiles aimed a Europe.

 

[Scott CWO]

Lol, ok. Nice of us to create some warehouse space for the military. I suppose the 80B we left for the Taliban is all "old" too?

Nobody on this site condones what happened with the Biden exit of Afghanistan and what does it have to do directly with Ukraine?? You are all over the place. Your arguments are fragmented and disorganized. You link things that are completely separate situations over and over again.

 

[Nature Boy]

Just my opinion, but based on the number of posts in such a short time, it appears Nature Boy is getting help from Russian Bots.

100% and hunter biden and the big guy

 

[Scott CWO]

lol

The United States missile defense complex in Poland, also called the European Interceptor Site (EIS), was a planned (but never built) American missile defense base.

Poland is a NATO member and not Ukraine and the interceptors are not nuclear! Oh but don’t bore yourself with facts!

 

[Nature Boy]

Battlefields are indeed wasteful places. I have no doubt any number of munitions and small arms (NATO and Russian) will find their way onto the black market. It is a giant step to conclude Ukraine is not diligently employing the weaponry they have been provided as effectively as possible against the Russia's invasion.

And whatever is leaked off the battlefields of Ukraine is a pittance compared to what we left the Taliban in Afghanistan. That debacle is indeed worth additional review.

And no. The US government does not provide the Ukrainian government cash to buy weapon systems. US weapons are provided against the Congressional allocation, and direct contractor provided weapons are provided through DOD contracts written against that allocation. Even the NSAMS ADA system which is a joint Norwegian US project are being provided on DOD contract through Raytheon. Ukraine is not buying them with treasury dollars.

Jeez. Read what you posted. Yes there was planning to put mid-course interceptors in Poland. You do realize that Poland is a NATO member and is not Ukraine don't you? The interceptors also use a conventional warhead - not a nuke. Their placement there was to potentially engage Iranian missiles aimed a Europe.

Long-Term Military Support ($10.4 billion): This consists of money that Ukraine can use to buy new weapons, mostly from the United States but also elsewhere. The problem is that these need to be manufactured, so there is a long delay. As a result, this likely funds postwar rebuilding the Ukrainian military.

 

[Nature Boy]

Nobody on this site condones what happened with the Biden exit of Afghanistan and what does it have to do directly with Ukraine?? You are all over the place. Your arguments are fragmented and disorganized. You link things that are completely separate situations over and over again.

Opposite, your arguments are. Mine all lead back to the MI complex., grifitng defense contractors and imo I'm 100% correct.

 

[Nature Boy]

Poland is a NATO member and not Ukraine and the interceptors are not nuclear! Oh but don’t bore yourself with facts!

I realize that as are the Baltic states that you said putin would "rebuild" the soviet empire with. lmao. Article 5 is no good hah? The point was it was not stretch to want to put missiles into Ukraine. I'm pretty sure we have nuclear weapons in Germany. Big stretch.

 

[Scott CWO]

Who supports Russia here? I don't. You need to understand the USA did a coup in Ukraine in 2014 and installed an anti Russian guy. That seems fine but you likely have forgot that we planned to put nuclear missiles into Ukraine, about 10 minutes to Moscow. That started this new cold war and why did we provoke it? I'm not saying Putin or Russia are good, they are not. But starting this over BS and ignoring our real enemy is china is lol stupid. Russia can't do anything to the USA and in the meantime china has been cleaning our clock. Want to hurt Russia? Do what Trump did and pump a ton of oil and cripple their major export. But what has this idiot done? Started a war on fossil fuels and helped Russia, Venezuela, Iran and other horrible regimes that the US has famously called enemies. You're being played by this scam in my view.

You lost what credibility you might have had with your 4th sentence. I’m done with your wacky conspiracy theories. I tried to debate reasonably with you but it’s impossible with an unreasonable conspirator. Goodbye.

 

[Nature Boy]

Battlefields are indeed wasteful places. I have no doubt any number of munitions and small arms (NATO and Russian) will find their way onto the black market. It is a giant step to conclude Ukraine is not diligently employing the weaponry they have been provided as effectively as possible against the Russia's invasion.

And whatever is leaked off the battlefields of Ukraine is a pittance compared to what we left the Taliban in Afghanistan. That debacle is indeed worth additional review.

And no. The US government does not provide the Ukrainian government cash to buy weapon systems. US weapons are provided against the Congressional allocation, and direct contractor provided weapons are provided through DOD contracts written against that allocation. Even the NSAMS ADA system which is a joint Norwegian US project are being provided on DOD contract through Raytheon. Ukraine is not buying them with treasury dollars.

Jeez. Read what you posted. Yes there was planning to put mid-course interceptors in Poland. You do realize that Poland is a NATO member and is not Ukraine don't you? The interceptors also use a conventional warhead - not a nuke. Their placement there was to potentially engage Iranian missiles aimed a Europe.

On May 15, the U.S. Ambassador in Warsaw, Georgette Mosbacher, suggested relocating U.S. nuclear weapons based in Germany to Poland.

 

[Nature Boy]

You lost what credibility you might have had with your 4th sentence. I’m done with your wacky conspiracy theories. I tried to debate reasonably with you but it’s impossible with an unreasonable conspirator. Goodbye.

see ya

 

[Scott CWO]

I realize that as are the Baltic states that you said putin would "rebuild" the soviet empire with. lmao. Article 5 is no good hah? The point was it was not stretch to want to put missiles into Ukraine. I'm pretty sure we have nuclear weapons in Germany. Big stretch.

The overuse of “lmao” is childish and will not help you win any argument.