Invasion of Ukraine

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

You read the Steele thing and you just cringe that people actually believed it.

Yeah, that crazy Steele report. I mean, nothing in that was believable, right? Even the stuff that ended up being corroborated?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

China is going to play both sides. They are going to get as much out of Russia as they can without jeopardizing their income from the West.

I agree with this. That's why the ambassador statement seems out of norm, they do seem to be taking Ukraine's side. I'll wait for verification or a "clarification" from China.

[Qwikshot]

I think it's more simple than that. China is supportive because the West will provide aid to Ukraine and that money then can be co-opted by China.

Russia will barely be able to afford anything and will be in sanction hell for a long time. Even if they conquer Ukraine they will not provide any aid or support to it, they won't have funds to do so.

China is a profiteer.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Well, China probably sees an opportunity to get a foothold. Especially if Ukraine is not going to join NATO. Give help with the rebuild with plenty of strings attached, just like everywhere else in Belt and Road. They see an investment opportunity.

Oh 100%, China only does what ultimately benefits China and they are masters at the long game. Ukraine will be indebted to them and the US will probably do some back door brokering as well, but this is one case where playing with the Snake may at least have the benefit of keeping Putin in check and is probably the best option for avoiding what could grow into a horrific conflict.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

and they are masters at the long game.

Yeah. This is a gross generalization, but the West just does not think at the time scale the Chinese do.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Yeah. This is a gross generalization, but the West just does not think at the time scale the Chinese do.

I'll have "Things autocracies can do because of a single, monolithic political party, for $500, Alex"

[RainMaker]

I don't think China is playing 4D chess or anything. They just see where the wind is blowing. They likely have good information on where Russia stands and feels this is going to end up going Ukraine's way.

I do hope that money gets confiscated from the oligarchs and is used to rebuild Ukraine. The country seems to be in shambles.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

On December 3, 2019, as part of the impeachment inquiry, the House Intelligence Committee published a 300-page report detailing that "the impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection. In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump conditioned official acts on a public announcement by the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, of politically-motivated investigations, including one into Joe Biden, one of Trump's domestic political opponents. In pressuring President Zelenskyy to carry out his demand, President Trump withheld a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian President, and critical U.S. military assistance to fight Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine."^[22]: 8 In January 2020, the Government Accountability Office, a non-partisan watchdog, concluded that the White House broke federal law by withholding Congress-approved military aid to Ukraine.^[23]

People forget how much money was being pumped into people close to the President. It went well beyond Gates and Manafort. Russia has wanted control of Ukraine for awhile and the removal of sanctions against some of their wealthy oligarchs.

DC-based lobbyists and lawyers have earned nearly $50 million since 2014 by representing high-level Russian clients linked to the Kremlin https://t.co/xGALyuuQ9i

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) March 16, 2022

[JPhillips]

Damn. US estimates say the Russians have lost more soldiers in 20 days than the US did in the 36 days of the Iwo Jima campaign.

[Flasch186]

I still think when the videos and photos come out of the sieged city's we're going to have a real moral dilemma. I think that's when, if this thing isn't over by then, we're going to have to go in. Humanitarian or whatever but we're not willing to stomach images that harken back to the holocaust again. That's when things are going to get really scary and I think one needs to be prepared for worst case scenarios. I think it's coming. Boots on the ground under NATO labeling and for humanitarian purposes but I think its inevitable if we don't get this to an end maybe by this weekend.

[JPhillips]

Things look really bleak in Russia.

Ominous words from Putin about a “natural and necessary cleansing of the nation” to “spit out like flies” all representatives of a fifth column and “traitors” who do not back the Kremlin line. No wonder thousands are leaving the country in fear. pic.twitter.com/66LGpo12p3

— Matthew Luxmoore (@mjluxmoore) March 16, 2022

[Edward64]

US providing drones. Based on the description, they are like shorter distance cruise missile. If supplied in enough quantity and with intel to tell what to target, I can see this really making a difference.

On the third bolded re: US training remotely ... it may be the trainers somewhere in NATO land doing all the work.

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news...5194be9deacd17

President Joe Biden announced on Wednesday additional US assistance to Ukraine including drones, and two sources familiar with the matter tell CNN that, specifically, the US will be providing Switchblade drones, which are small, portable so-called kamikaze or suicide drones that carry a warhead and detonate on impact.

The Switchblade 300 and the larger Switchblade 600 are produced by AeroVironment.

The smaller Switchblade 300 can hit a target up to 6 miles away, according to specifications provided by the company, while the larger Switchblade 600 can strike more than 20 miles away. Both systems can be set up and launched within minutes.

CNN reported earlier today that the Switchblade drones were on Ukraine’s wish list of requested military and technological assistance they are still requesting to share with the US government, according to two sources familiar with the list.

These weapons were added to the list after the Ukrainians consulted with congressional partners over the weekend on a draft of the list. The US would have to provide training for the Ukrainian troops if the US gives them those weapons, but the sources familiar with the list said that could be done remotely.

[Flasch186]

Sounds like Hitler using those words.

I’m afraid we’re going to be stepping up sooner rather than later


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Someone here early on wondered about lack of combat videos? A fair number has come out from what I've noticed.

It is morbidly fascinating. There was one today with a Russian Z tank getting hit 3 times with anti-tank. Third time ignited something and it really blew. Footage of Russian on the ground crawling.

I think I'll stop clicking on those video links and just stick with photos.

[Edward64]

More info on what we are sending over with the $800M bill

Biden announces $800 million in new military aid to Ukraine

Details: The U.S. will directly transfer the following equipment to the Ukrainian military as part of the latest package, according to a White House fact sheet:

800 Stinger anti-aircraft systems
2,000 Javelin anti-armor missiles
1,000 light anti-armor weapons
6,000 AT-4 anti-armor systems
100 Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems (armed drones)
7,000 small arms for both military and civilian use (100 grenade launchers, 5,000 rifles, 1,000 pistols, 400 machine guns and 400 shotguns)
Over 20 million rounds of ammunition
25,000 sets of body armor
25,000 helmets

[BYU 14]

Part of what is annoying about that to me is that my son went on one deployment with body armor that was 2 years past its life cycle. Where the fuck were those then?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Someone here early on wondered about lack of combat videos? A fair number has come out from what I've noticed.

It is morbidly fascinating. There was one today with a Russian Z tank getting hit 3 times with anti-tank. Third time ignited something and it really blew. Footage of Russian on the ground crawling.

I think I'll stop clicking on those video links and just stick with photos.

There are a ton on Telegram. We are used to seeing stuff on more popular social media, but they can't use it because those companies will sell the data to the Russians. So Telegram has been the place where most 9f the crazy videos are posted if anyone is interested.

[PilotMan]

We wonder how Russian citizens can continue to support the war and how they can just 'go along' with the propaganda, but if the US had invaded Mexico under the guise of cleansing the area of drugs and criminals and the creation of an 'immigration buffer' that no matter the processes involved there would be a solid chunk of people here who felt that Mexico had it coming and that they had no reason to fight back since we were simply making it better for them and saving lives. There's plenty now who are willingly supporting Russian propaganda in the US, so it's not really unexpected and should be noted for future discussion.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

We wonder how Russian citizens can continue to support the war and how they can just 'go along' with the propaganda, but if the US had invaded Mexico under the guise of cleansing the area of drugs and criminals and the creation of an 'immigration buffer' that no matter the processes involved there would be a solid chunk of people here who felt that Mexico had it coming and that they had no reason to fight back since we were simply making it better for them and saving lives. There's plenty now who are willingly supporting Russian propaganda in the US, so it's not really unexpected and should be noted for future discussion.

That is absolutely true. Of course there would be huge protest, but they could easily ramp up the propaganda to give well over 50% support for an invasion. Heck, a "should the US military invade Mexico to secure the border and stop drugs and terrorist entering the country?" could probably hit close to 40% now.
People are pretty cavalier with their attitude toward use of force in general. It is mainly because there has been very little direct consequences at home. 9/11 was the biggest, but it was more an indirect consequence and most people don't really tie that to our use of the military. That may change if we do end up engaging Russia. There is no chance Russia could full on invade the US. They definitely could strike into the mainland with cruise missiles and long range bombers. Their navy is not that much of a threat, except they do have a large number of nuclear subs. I imagine they could hit almost anywhere in the US with sub launched cruise missiles. Of course, that is taking the Nukes out of it, but that may be wishful thinking that they would not use them.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Things look really bleak in Russia.

Ominous words from Putin about a “natural and necessary cleansing of the nation” to “spit out like flies” all representatives of a fifth column and “traitors” who do not back the Kremlin line. No wonder thousands are leaving the country in fear. pic.twitter.com/66LGpo12p3

— Matthew Luxmoore (@mjluxmoore) March 16, 2022

Airline trackers showed a number of private jets taking a one-way trip from Moscow to Dubai today.

[Flasch186]

PM is almost like we can see seeds of it here in the states.

E - I don’t mean in some hard to find social network, I’m talking on the news on Facebook in the msm

Then we’re in trouble


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Part of what is annoying about that to me is that my son went on one deployment with body armor that was 2 years past its life cycle. Where the fuck were those then?

What's to say we're not sending them the same exact used body armor he wore years ago and having Raytheon or Northrup Grumman or whoever writing it off :P

SI

[PilotMan]

At the very least, we're at the start of a new arms race and cold war.

The American ""western" propaganda needs to ramp up again in all honesty. Unity of of the democracies around the world, vocal peace protests, and further isolation of states that continue to support the oppressive Russian tactics and regime need to be ferreted out.

As for what actions are ultimately needed, Europe needs to take the lead, front and center. This shouldn't be US v Russia it should be all of western civilizations against Russia and with it in their own backyard, and the greater threats posed to smaller countries and countries who are not currently aligned with Europe, now is the time to fortify those bonds and be prepared to lean in to supporting those choices. You can still lead and empower at the same time.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

What's to say we're not sending them the same exact used body armor he wore years ago and having Raytheon or Northrup Grumman or whoever writing it off :P

SI

We could very well be, the point being let's take care of our military, because the line was, they didn't have enough of a supply, good or bad.

[RainMaker]

These are kind of cool.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...sia-biden-war/

[RainMaker]

When this is over, we better be trying people for war crimes.

“My brother Jimmy Hill was killed yesterday in Chernihiv, Ukraine. He was waiting in a bread line with several other people when they were gunned down” by Russian military forces, his sister, Cheryl Hill Gordon, wrote on Facebook. https://t.co/y78wJfora1

— Jonathan Landay (@JonathanLanday) March 17, 2022

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

These are kind of cool.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...sia-biden-war/

I'm a commercial drone pilot in addition to being a pilot. These things terrify me. I mean, my biggest fear are the autonomous, or semi-autonomous, because once we have cheap killer drones, war will never end. Terrorism will never end. It's too cheap to send drones to fight wars when you don't need to commit human lives to do it. A squadron of attack drones, working in unison could feasibly wipe out selected targets spread across an area, and they are use and lose weapons, and not high enough tech to worry about losing. It's terrifying.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I'm a commercial drone pilot in addition to being a pilot. These things terrify me. I mean, my biggest fear are the autonomous, or semi-autonomous, because once we have cheap killer drones, war will never end. Terrorism will never end. It's too cheap to send drones to fight wars when you don't need to commit human lives to do it. A squadron of attack drones, working in unison could feasibly wipe out selected targets spread across an area, and they are use and lose weapons, and not high enough tech to worry about losing. It's terrifying.

There's a Philip K Dick short story I read a long time ago (can't remember the name or which anthology it was in) about humans having to live underground because of these war drones that are hunting humans to extinction long after the war has ended... crazy to think of how close we are to that, I'm guessing landmines were the inspiration to PKD, yet here we are so close to the terrifying thing he created in his mind.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Part of what is annoying about that to me is that my son went on one deployment with body armor that was 2 years past its life cycle. Where the fuck were those then?

Or, when my brother deployed to Iraq in 2005, lacking reasonable body armor, sufficient ammunition, up-armored humvees, lubricant for gun turrets, maintenance parts for vehicles, etc....

We spend all this money on the military and where, exactly, is it going?

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

There's a Philip K Dick short story I read a long time ago (can't remember the name or which anthology it was in) about humans having to live underground because of these war drones that are hunting humans to extinction long after the war has ended... crazy to think of how close we are to that, I'm guessing landmines were the inspiration to PKD, yet here we are so close to the terrifying thing he created in his mind.

There’s a black mirror episode with a similar concept. Doesn’t feel like it’s futuristic fiction any more does it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Or, when my brother deployed to Iraq in 2005, lacking reasonable body armor, sufficient ammunition, up-armored humvees, lubricant for gun turrets, maintenance parts for vehicles, etc....

We spend all this money on the military and where, exactly, is it going?

You mean military contractors screw us? Never. /shocked face/

We have our own pseudo-oligarchs here, we just call them corporations.

SI

[Edward64]

3 weeks since the war started. Seems much longer than that.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I'm a commercial drone pilot in addition to being a pilot. These things terrify me. I mean, my biggest fear are the autonomous, or semi-autonomous, because once we have cheap killer drones, war will never end. Terrorism will never end. It's too cheap to send drones to fight wars when you don't need to commit human lives to do it. A squadron of attack drones, working in unison could feasibly wipe out selected targets spread across an area, and they are use and lose weapons, and not high enough tech to worry about losing. It's terrifying.

One day we'll move on to mathematical weapons and disintegration chambers. Then war will be civilized.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by sabotai

One day we'll move on to mathematical weapons and disintegration chambers. Then war will be civilized.

That took a full on google search to pull off. Nice deep take.

[Groundhog]

That's definitely an episode that has stuck with me ever since I first saw it.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

As for what actions are ultimately needed, Europe needs to take the lead, front and center. This shouldn't be US v Russia it should be all of western civilizations against Russia and with it in their own backyard, and the greater threats posed to smaller countries and countries who are not currently aligned with Europe, now is the time to fortify those bonds and be prepared to lean in to supporting those choices. You can still lead and empower at the same time.

What entity in this context to you would be "Europe"?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

What entity in this context to you would be "Europe"?

Ideally, it's less of an existing entity, and more of a collective of the willing, like we saw when the world through down Saddam the first time. Recognition of the current state of affairs, decisions on the level of threat that is faced and a determination on what the best course based on acceptable outcomes. I'd give as much leeway as countries were willing to accept. From we're good, this is ok, all the way to we're willing to reject this threat in the most aggressive way possible. It really needs to be a look in the mirror moment, but from the US perspective we should be ready to accept a wide array of decisions without unduly influencing or exacerbating, and let the chips fall.

Because it's not the UN, NATO isn't entirely represented, the EU isn't a military structure, and so on, so ideally it's through individual diplomacy, but lead by those countries as opposed to the USA.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Ideally, it's less of an existing entity, and more of a collective of the willing, like we saw when the world through down Saddam the first time. Recognition of the current state of affairs, decisions on the level of threat that is faced and a determination on what the best course based on acceptable outcomes. I'd give as much leeway as countries were willing to accept. From we're good, this is ok, all the way to we're willing to reject this threat in the most aggressive way possible. It really needs to be a look in the mirror moment, but from the US perspective we should be ready to accept a wide array of decisions without unduly influencing or exacerbating, and let the chips fall.

Because it's not the UN, NATO isn't entirely represented, the EU isn't a military structure, and so on, so ideally it's through individual diplomacy, but lead by those countries as opposed to the USA.

Which is exactly the complicated part and why I don't see it happening. The EU is by no means a "union" on this and basically has no say in this anyway. Everybody has demands, but nobody is the true leader. Macron/France tried and failed to keep Putin from making this move. The UK and Russia are not on speaking terms. The European leaders will look around to each other and think: what will big brother the USA do?

[PilotMan]

Ultimately not making a decision is making a decision. The US was in Afghanistan for 20 years and they had opportunity after opportunity to get the country on their side. Ultimately the people couldn't find a way to say no to the Taliban so they get the leadership and the country they deserve. If they cannot come to a consensus yet, then that is a decision, and the faster they move on and work on what the next phase of whatever comes next the better. At some point though, something would get bad enough that a different choice would be made, until then however that is the choice and the US really shouldn't get caught up in another thing where they aren't in the overwhelming majority.

[RainMaker]

Sergey Lavrov, during an English-language interview on RT, says that "only Fox News is trying to represent some alternative points of view" while calling the rest of the US press propaganda because "there is no such thing as an independent Western media." pic.twitter.com/0kNIHZy0uv

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) March 18, 2022

[Brian Swartz]

For Europe to take the lead they need to form a body politic of some sort which allows for one entity/leader to make 'foreign policy' decisions for them. That's not happening anytime soon. Even in the first Gulf War as referenced it wasn't really a collective of the willing, it was the US getting other nations to follow them. Yes there were dozens of nations involved but the US had almost three-quarters of the manpower involved, and I think it's highly unlikely the other nations would have made the commitments they did without that being the case.

I'm not aware of any examples of a successful 'collective of the willing', there's always a superpower leading the way. As the saying goes, there's a price you pay for being rich, free, and alive at the same time. I think part of the reason the EU is what it is, is because they don't *want* that responsibility. Obviously there is a point at which that would no longer be the case if things get bad enough, but do we really want to wait long enough for to happen? There's never been a united Europe aside from dictators, and while I hope it happens there's very natural resistance to it.

[PilotMan]

If the agreement is in the form of isolation and sanctions then that is what the path is. Whether or not it's enough is rather irrelevant, it is the choice. Every day the question on whether it's the right choice should be asked, and until it's not the right answer, then it is the right one. It's not doing nothing, it's just all that you're determined to do right now. The US can cheer and encourage from the background all dya, and say this is who we are and what we should be protecting, but until you've got people who agree with you and support that then you do everything else.

[Solecismic]

Seems like a big ask when the EU alone has 24 official languages and the most-spoken language (either as native or secondary) only unites about a quarter of the population.

The trend is still to split countries over ethnic differences. There are independent countries that make Rhode Island look vast and have the population of a small town.

The prospect of building a real military is so daunting that only countries that have recently been at war can do all that much. There's a guideline that a percentage of GDP should be spent on defense in the EU, but that's just a guideline.

The EU is essentially a trade alliance plus. Asking a central body to take more responsibility, including sending young people to war and demanding support for something people might feel strongly against... that's a major change from how things are done. Already, the UK has left the EU because its people (pretty much evenly divided) were frustrated over being bound by economic decisions made by bureaucrats who had no real ties to the UK.

It's hard to build a centralized anything. What happened with the US is unique - an ideal geography, an intricate relationship between states and union, a "We the People" approach that has never been shared in all that many places. And still, our president was going to stay out of WWII until Pearl Harbor was attacked.

The amount of anger toward Russia over this senseless attack is beyond anything we've seen before. It took years and far more atrocities before even Hitler generated that kind of anger. That's the power of the internet and other technologies. And still, only about half the world even opposes what Putin is doing.

That doesn't necessarily include all NATO countries. Turkey is part of NATO and initially signaled it would not allow Russian ships to travel into the Black Sea. Yet Japan reports ships carrying obvious war vehicles and supplies are traveling along a route that doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless it's headed in that direction. We talk about Article 5 like it's a given every NATO nation would instantly move, as required by the treaty. I'm not sure even that is possible, let alone a united Europe.

The US has a supposed treaty with the Philippines that its president has openly announced isn't worth the paper it's printed upon.

There is no easy answer to this type of aggression, only a hope that more and more people embrace a democratic approach that makes it almost impossible to support being the aggressor. And that's no given, either. When the US went into Iraq, supported by quite a few countries, that ended up spending a lot of good will toward this approach.

We were living in a time of unprecedented peace. That may have ended, but it will be nearly impossible to create some sort of world order to get it back on track. It will require a combination of diplomacy and resolve that I'm not sure exists today, though Zelensky himself is inspiring.

[Thomkal]

Another Ukraine charity bundle this one from Hundle Bundle-games, comics, roleplaying books, game dev assets


https://www.humblebundle.com/stand-w...m_medium=email

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I'm a commercial drone pilot in addition to being a pilot. These things terrify me. I mean, my biggest fear are the autonomous, or semi-autonomous, because once we have cheap killer drones, war will never end. Terrorism will never end. It's too cheap to send drones to fight wars when you don't need to commit human lives to do it. A squadron of attack drones, working in unison could feasibly wipe out selected targets spread across an area, and they are use and lose weapons, and not high enough tech to worry about losing. It's terrifying.

Agree that they're terrifying. But we've been doing the neverending war stuff well before weapons like this were available.

I feel like technology like this helps level the playing field. Similar to how MANPADS and Javelinss have leveled the playing field. Maybe gives pause to countries before starting wars. The alternative is that a handful of rich countries get to decimate poor countries with no recourse.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It's hard to build a centralized anything. What happened with the US is unique - an ideal geography, an intricate relationship between states and union, a "We the People" approach that has never been shared in all that many places. And still, our president was going to stay out of WWII until Pearl Harbor was attacked.

I agree with this. Europe is incredibly diverse and each country has different motivations and risks.

Eastern Europe relies heavily on Russia for energy and can't afford to sanction it. Some neighboring countries are threatened due to their proximity to Russia and want to be either more aggressive or cautious. The UK has opened it's arms to financial criminals and money launderers over the years and doesn't want to upset certain wealthy individuals.

I don't really know how they could get on the same page. It would likely take an event that threatens all of them in a major way (nuclear weapon use for instance).

[albionmoonlight]

How Russia's war against Ukraine could make the chip shortage worse - Vox

I guess this could go in the Biden thread, too. But I'm wondering about whether companies/countries will start trying to diversify supplies of critical materials going forward.

On the one hand, that's not efficient. One of the whole points of free trade is that stuff gets produced in the places that it is cheapest to produce it and consumed in the places willing to pay the most to consume it. You could grow oranges in a hothouse in Canada, but that will never be as efficient as growing them all in Florida/Brazil/etc.

But this conflict has shown that the whole system depends on global peace.

So when/if Putin's invasion ends (however that happens), it could be a chance for companies to reconsider global supply chains and think things like "We need [X] product to function. 100% of our supply comes from country [Y]. We should start buying some of it from [Z] b/c it is on the other side of the world from [Y]."

The problem, though, is that if 100% of the supply comes from [Y], that's probably b/c [Y] is the cheapest place to make it. And the shareholders won't care that paying a little extra to get some from [Z] is for the long term good of the company (and they certainly won't care that it is for the good of the country or world). So, just like with levees in New Orleans or voting machines in Florida or any of thousands of examples, the market will choose saving/making money in the short term over disaster prevention or stability in the long term.

And the only way around that would seem to be government requirements of diversity of supplies, which is (rightly) a non-starter b/c state controlled economies basically suck (And for all that the talking heads love to brand anyone left of Reagan as a "communist" or "socialist," this country is (rightly, IMO) very pro-capitalist and the vast vast majority of even very left-wing folks here are nowhere close to being actually pro-communist or pro-socialist.

And, yes, we've seen a rash of "private companies are barred from requiring masks" laws. But those, IMO, seem to be more a function of COVID hysteria than part of a larger pro-communist/socialist/state-control movement by the GOP.).

tl;dr these supply chain problems will happen with every global conflict b/c they reflect good market sense.

[GrantDawg]

I know the whole "government shouldn't pick winners " thing, but it really might be in our best interest to subsidize certain critical products to make it more cost effective to produce in country. Computer chips for one.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[GrantDawg]

It is interesting that Russia used a hyper-sonic missile for a general bombing. These are supposed to be the glory of both the Russian and Chinese arsenal. It is something the US haven't developed. The strike was supposed to be a warning to NATO and instead was met with a "meh." The damage was no more extensive than a standard cruise missile, and NATO was able to track it the whole way which wasn't supposed to happen.


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

A thought occurred to me. I sure hope the Stingers and Javelins have some sort of plan obsolescence built in so "stolen" ones can't be used against us in the future.