Ukraine conflict
#2881
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,903
Will we hit 300,000 views before you present you resume detailing your military career, PME, and degrees?
People aren't getting educated coming to this thread. This is more like coming to the 'Pol Pot International School of Military Studies'....where they kill everyone with any intelligence.
People aren't getting educated coming to this thread. This is more like coming to the 'Pol Pot International School of Military Studies'....where they kill everyone with any intelligence.
#2882
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2023
Posts: 722
You're posting propaganda on a subforum 3 tiers deep on a website about airlines, not global politics. You'd probably have better engagement if you posted Air Fryer recipes.
Last edited by ReluctantEskimo; 05-01-2024 at 02:07 PM.
#2884
I get it. No one likes being told that they're life's work is total waste of time. But 194,000* impressions says absolutely nothing about unique visitors or engagement.
You're posting propaganda on a subforum 3 tiers deep on a website about airlines, not global politics. You'd probably have better engagement if you posted Air Fryer recipes.
You're posting propaganda on a subforum 3 tiers deep on a website about airlines, not global politics. You'd probably have better engagement if you posted Air Fryer recipes.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organization dedicated to advancing practical ideas to address the world’s greatest challenges.
Thomas J. Pritzker was named chairman of the CSIS Board of Trustees in 2015, succeeding former U.S. senator Sam Nunn (D-GA). Founded in 1962, CSIS is led by John J. Hamre, who has served as president and chief executive officer since 2000.
Thomas J. Pritzker was named chairman of the CSIS Board of Trustees in 2015, succeeding former U.S. senator Sam Nunn (D-GA). Founded in 1962, CSIS is led by John J. Hamre, who has served as president and chief executive officer since 2000.
https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Ne...f-fabrication/
Try again.
As for the sub forum topic, complain to Hubcapped. He's the thread starter, not me. But having said that, it's now pushing 195,000 views. The only thread with more views in Hangar Talk seems to be the "introduce yourself" thread which was started in 2012, ten years before this thread. But yeah, you can go peruse air fryer recipes to your hearts content:
https://www.allrecipes.com/recipes/2...ent/air-fryer/
Go for it.
But it isn't 194,000 "impressions", it's 194,000 views. Obviously some people find the thread interesting.
But if you really want your jaw torqued, read this:
https://www.realclearinvestigations....y_1027411.html
That may actually be propaganda since I can't vouch for the accuracy because I haven't really had time to completely check it out, but the 10% or so sample of things I have been able to look up so far are fairly consistent with the author's claims. In any event, it is another voice heard from on what I believe to be an important issue today. But to each his/her own. Enjoy your air fryer recipes.
Last edited by Excargodog; 05-01-2024 at 06:09 PM.
#2886
#2887
Another voice heard from…
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon...kraine-taiwan/
Apr 30 at 03:00 AM
Some excerpts:
Logistics, logistics, logistics...
Soaring US munitions demand strains support for Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan
By Bryant Harris and Noah RobertsonApr 30 at 03:00 AM
“Pre-Ukraine, we had munitions requirements that were in almost every important case — particularly for the Indo-Pacific — not even close to being met,” a Republican congressional staffer told Defense News, speaking on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the topic. “For the most important [Indo-Pacific] munitions, we haven’t hit the total munitions requirement.”
The shortages are in part symptoms of a chronic issue, said a senior defense official, granted anonymity to discuss the closely held process. The Pentagon has long used munitions as a “bill payer,” neglecting their purchase in favor of platforms like ships or planes in the annual budgets, the official added.
Over time, the low orders led to some companies exiting the market, which in turn reduces the number of businesses that will build those munitions and the speed at which they come off the line.
“There are very few places where we have what you might call surplus stockpiles,” said Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank. “It’s a question of how much risk do you want to accept in our own war plans. That has been the driver in a lot of the decisions about what to give to the Ukrainians and the Taiwanese.”
For example, the U.S. could use Javelin anti-tank missiles or Tomahawk cruise missiles against at least four major competitors: China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. But the military doesn’t necessarily expect to fight all four adversaries at once and may calculate requirements based on fighting two enemies at a time.
“So you can choose a couple of scenarios and say, ‘Here’s two scenarios that are very stressing,’ and they’re going to form the basis for a number,” Clark said. “For example, the number for the Javelins is probably driven by Russia and North Korea. It depends on the weapon.”
The shortages are in part symptoms of a chronic issue, said a senior defense official, granted anonymity to discuss the closely held process. The Pentagon has long used munitions as a “bill payer,” neglecting their purchase in favor of platforms like ships or planes in the annual budgets, the official added.
Over time, the low orders led to some companies exiting the market, which in turn reduces the number of businesses that will build those munitions and the speed at which they come off the line.
“There are very few places where we have what you might call surplus stockpiles,” said Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank. “It’s a question of how much risk do you want to accept in our own war plans. That has been the driver in a lot of the decisions about what to give to the Ukrainians and the Taiwanese.”
For example, the U.S. could use Javelin anti-tank missiles or Tomahawk cruise missiles against at least four major competitors: China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. But the military doesn’t necessarily expect to fight all four adversaries at once and may calculate requirements based on fighting two enemies at a time.
“So you can choose a couple of scenarios and say, ‘Here’s two scenarios that are very stressing,’ and they’re going to form the basis for a number,” Clark said. “For example, the number for the Javelins is probably driven by Russia and North Korea. It depends on the weapon.”
But sometimes these projections fall short. In 2016, for instance, the Air Force said it lacked enough munitions — including Hellfire missiles, Joint Direct Attack Munition kits and Small Diameter Bombs — during its campaign against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria.
The shortages prompted the Air Force to decline some allies’ requests to buy the in-demand munitions.
The U.S. often serves as a “backstop” for European allies, Clark noted, pointing to NATO’s heavy reliance on American munitions in its 2011 Libya campaign.
“It’s not so much, are we going to have enough weapons to sustain our own capacity for a ground war, because we probably do,” Clark said. “It’s, do we have enough to sustain our own capacity to fight and also support our European allies who may need augmentation because clearly they don’t maintain the magazines to sustain themselves.”
Others interviewed about the munitions requirements process also noted it lags behind real-world events and is closely tied to the Pentagon’s war plans, which usually project short conflicts instead of the reality of longer, protracted wars.
The shortages prompted the Air Force to decline some allies’ requests to buy the in-demand munitions.
The U.S. often serves as a “backstop” for European allies, Clark noted, pointing to NATO’s heavy reliance on American munitions in its 2011 Libya campaign.
“It’s not so much, are we going to have enough weapons to sustain our own capacity for a ground war, because we probably do,” Clark said. “It’s, do we have enough to sustain our own capacity to fight and also support our European allies who may need augmentation because clearly they don’t maintain the magazines to sustain themselves.”
Others interviewed about the munitions requirements process also noted it lags behind real-world events and is closely tied to the Pentagon’s war plans, which usually project short conflicts instead of the reality of longer, protracted wars.
Since the Israel-Hamas war began in October, the U.S. has also used weapons that could be relevant to an Indo-Pacific battle, like the Standard Missile-6 and Tomahawks, to respond to Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping lanes off Yemen’s coast.
“Is it a sustainable, long-term strategy to use million-dollar munitions to shoot down drones and loitering munitions that are $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 a piece?” Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., asked Gen. Michael Kurilla, the U.S. Central Command leader overseeing forces in the Middle East, during a House hearing in March.
Kurilla stressed the need for the services to create more “cost-effective” counter-drone systems based on directed-energy and laser technology to use against Houthi attacks, instead of launching costly missiles.
The Standard Missile-6 and Tomahawk weapons cost several million dollars per unit. Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro told Congress in April the service is “approaching $1 billion in munitions” it needs to replenish as a result of its Red Sea operations
“Is it a sustainable, long-term strategy to use million-dollar munitions to shoot down drones and loitering munitions that are $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 a piece?” Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., asked Gen. Michael Kurilla, the U.S. Central Command leader overseeing forces in the Middle East, during a House hearing in March.
Kurilla stressed the need for the services to create more “cost-effective” counter-drone systems based on directed-energy and laser technology to use against Houthi attacks, instead of launching costly missiles.
The Standard Missile-6 and Tomahawk weapons cost several million dollars per unit. Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro told Congress in April the service is “approaching $1 billion in munitions” it needs to replenish as a result of its Red Sea operations
Logistics, logistics, logistics...
#2888
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,903
IRL, there’s your disconnect. What we see on campus quads is real. Leadership/policy gaps spreading DOD influence far too thin far too long does more harm than good. Social rebellion of the late sixties, not the same but hardly coincidental. Policing global trade routes is one thing. Settling ancient ethnic blood feuds, bogus.
#2889
French troops on the ground?
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/32010
Who is Macron kidding? Twenty-five years ago - when European countries were far better prepared militarily than they are now - nobody had the ability to stave off even just the Serbian army in Yugoslavia until they convinced the US to take the lead.
https://www.barrons.com/news/when-na...lavia-37e4555d
It ain't French boots on the ground he is talking about, it's American boots on the ground.
French President Emmanuel Macron has reaffirmed that he doesn't rule out sending troops to Ukraine if Russia breaks through Ukrainian front lines and Kyiv requests such assistance.
In an interview with The Economist, Macron stated that the possibility of sending troops would "legitimately" arise in such a scenario.
Macron's comments come in the wake of rising tensions amid concerns that Russia may launch a major new offensive in Ukraine.
Some analysts believe that Russia could be on the verge of launching a major new offensive in Ukraine.
"I'm not ruling anything out, because we are facing someone who is not ruling anything out," said Macron when asked if he stood by comments earlier this year not excluding the sending of Western troops that sent shockwaves around Europe.
He emphasized that if Russia were to escalate its actions, it would force all European leaders to consider sending troops
In an interview with The Economist, Macron stated that the possibility of sending troops would "legitimately" arise in such a scenario.
Macron's comments come in the wake of rising tensions amid concerns that Russia may launch a major new offensive in Ukraine.
Some analysts believe that Russia could be on the verge of launching a major new offensive in Ukraine.
"I'm not ruling anything out, because we are facing someone who is not ruling anything out," said Macron when asked if he stood by comments earlier this year not excluding the sending of Western troops that sent shockwaves around Europe.
He emphasized that if Russia were to escalate its actions, it would force all European leaders to consider sending troops
https://www.barrons.com/news/when-na...lavia-37e4555d
It ain't French boots on the ground he is talking about, it's American boots on the ground.
#2890
Always Working
Joined APC: Jul 2021
Posts: 342
Chemical weapons
why some think we should allow this brutal regime to annex Ukraine is just not thinking clearly:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68941220
And it's not just the use of chemical weapons:
"Elsewhere, Human Rights Watch - a non-governmental organisation - has called for a war crimes investigation after it unearthed evidence that Russian forces executed over a dozen surrendering Ukrainian troops. The events allegedly occurred between December 2023 and February 2024, the body said in a statement."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68941220
And it's not just the use of chemical weapons:
"Elsewhere, Human Rights Watch - a non-governmental organisation - has called for a war crimes investigation after it unearthed evidence that Russian forces executed over a dozen surrendering Ukrainian troops. The events allegedly occurred between December 2023 and February 2024, the body said in a statement."
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post