Politics Is it time for the west to assemble an army and kick Putin out of Ukraine?

[Eldarion Lathria]

When are you signing up?

Eldarion Lathria

 

[laughing dog]

When are you signing up?

Eldarion Lathria

Nice basset picture.

Signing up for what? I am not favoring the US send troops, just weapons.

 

[bilby]

We can't go to war with the USS-er, Russia, partly because some traitors in GB and US divulged our nuclear secrets to the USSR in the late forties and early fifties.

The only nuclear secret that the Soviet Union needed to get from the Manhattan Project was divulged by Truman, when he authorised the bombing of Japan - that nuclear weapons were possible.

Once they knew it could be done, they were inevitably going to do it; The information they got from spying just shortened that process.

There’s no plausible scenario by which the USSR could have failed to develop atomic weapons by the middle of the 1950s. Espionage might have shortened their development program by as much as five years, but it was probably less than that.

Certainly traitors in the “early fifties” cannot have been responsible for the USSR’s obtaining of nuclear weapons in 1949…

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're very naive if you think that China isn't very carefully studying how the west stands up to or not Russia in it's war with Ukraine.
You keep skipping the inflation issue. I've read your other posts blaming Biden for inflation. According to the CATO institute, the invasion is responsible for a $1.00 increase in gas in the US. How much do you think that is costing the tax payers? How much of inflation is due to the war? Yea, I'd trade billions for trillions any day of the week.

Yeah, I did notice you are very free and easy with US tax payer money. You look at this as an investment. A weird way of looking at it.

Those weapons were built for the purpose of destroying Russian military. They are doing exactly what they were intended for.

The fact that it's Ukrainian fingers on the triggers doesn't change this. Unless they are using them less efficiently than we would have there's really no value being lost--the billions were already spent. There is a huge gain, though--the Russian military has been exposed as nearly worthless, their stocks of high-tech weapons are pretty much depleted and it's being done without any real risk of turning into WWIII. This is an incredibly good deal for us and would remain so even if we didn't care one bit about the fate of Ukraine.

It is an incredibly good deal for the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech in 1961. The manufacturers of those sophisticated weapons systems are receiving a windfall from the sales and the politicians pushing for the use of those systems are receiving their campaign contributions and possible future lucrative positions when they lose their seats or retire from their government position.

I would say that Ike's fearful warning has proven fairly prophetic. Politicians have managed to pretty much keep the U.S. involved in wars continually somewhere in the world since WWII.

Reality check: The manufacturers aren't getting anything--the weapons being sent are from stockpiles, not fresh manufacture.

 

[fromderinside]

We can't go to war with the USS-er, Russia, partly because some traitors in GB and US divulged our nuclear secrets to the USSR in the late forties and early fifties.

The only nuclear secret that the Soviet Union needed to get from the Manhattan Project was divulged by Truman, when he authorised the bombing of Japan - that nuclear weapons were possible.

Once they knew it could be done, they were inevitably going to do it; The information they got from spying just shortened that process.

There’s no plausible scenario by which the USSR could have failed to develop atomic weapons by the middle of the 1950s. Espionage might have shortened their development program by as much as five years, but it was probably less than that.

Certainly traitors in the “early fifties” cannot have been responsible for the USSR’s obtaining of nuclear weapons in 1949…

I wrote late forties and early fifties. They stole fusion technology as well well after 1949 since the US hadn't completed development of it yet.

I'm all in on blaming those who sold out rather than giving credit to those who don't have, but would subvert and steal to get. Such, IMHO signal bad ethics of free people who value shekels and deceit over developing product.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We can't go to war with the USS-er, Russia, partly because some traitors in GB and US divulged our nuclear secrets to the USSR in the late forties and early fifties.

The only nuclear secret that the Soviet Union needed to get from the Manhattan Project was divulged by Truman, when he authorised the bombing of Japan - that nuclear weapons were possible.

Once they knew it could be done, they were inevitably going to do it; The information they got from spying just shortened that process.

There’s no plausible scenario by which the USSR could have failed to develop atomic weapons by the middle of the 1950s. Espionage might have shortened their development program by as much as five years, but it was probably less than that.

Disagree. How about a criticality accident taking out their lead researchers? That could have set them back substantially.

Other than that, I agree, once you know the bomb is possible you can't stop anyone from building one if they have enough effort to put into it.

Let's consider a US research project. They took two freshly-minted engineers who knew nothing of nukes. Assignment: Design an atomic bomb. While the project was highly classified the engineers had no access to classified data. They had a mostly-simulated research lab--they specified the experiments they wanted done and the lab (which was staffed by actual nuclear weapons engineers) either told them what the results would be or actually ran the experiment if they were not confident in simulating it.

It took the engineers IIRC 18 months to come up with a design for a plutonium implosion bomb that the experts said would have worked. It would be a lot easier now--that was more than 40 years ago.

The only real roadblock to fission weapons is obtaining the fissionables. There is no easy path.

 

[skepticalbip]

...

You're very naive if you think that China isn't very carefully studying how the west stands up to or not Russia in it's war with Ukraine.
You keep skipping the inflation issue. I've read your other posts blaming Biden for inflation. According to the CATO institute, the invasion is responsible for a $1.00 increase in gas in the US. How much do you think that is costing the tax payers? How much of inflation is due to the war? Yea, I'd trade billions for trillions any day of the week.

Yeah, I did notice you are very free and easy with US tax payer money. You look at this as an investment. A weird way of looking at it.

Those weapons were built for the purpose of destroying Russian military. They are doing exactly what they were intended for.

The fact that it's Ukrainian fingers on the triggers doesn't change this. Unless they are using them less efficiently than we would have there's really no value being lost--the billions were already spent. There is a huge gain, though--the Russian military has been exposed as nearly worthless, their stocks of high-tech weapons are pretty much depleted and it's being done without any real risk of turning into WWIII. This is an incredibly good deal for us and would remain so even if we didn't care one bit about the fate of Ukraine.

It is an incredibly good deal for the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech in 1961. The manufacturers of those sophisticated weapons systems are receiving a windfall from the sales and the politicians pushing for the use of those systems are receiving their campaign contributions and possible future lucrative positions when they lose their seats or retire from their government position.

I would say that Ike's fearful warning has proven fairly prophetic. Politicians have managed to pretty much keep the U.S. involved in wars continually somewhere in the world since WWII.

Reality check: The manufacturers aren't getting anything--the weapons being sent are from stockpiles, not fresh manufacture.

The weapons removed from stockpiles are restocked with new weapons which are purchased from the manufacturers. The military is not going to deplete their stock of weapons that they had to convince Congress were absolutely necessary to protect the nation.

The weapons manufacturers and those who invest in them understand this. For instance Lockheed makes several high tech weapons systems like the HIMARS and their stock on Feb. 23rd was $389/share. March 1st Lockheed stock was $456/share. Lockheed and investors knew that the U.S. would be supplying weapons and not the Ukraine buying them so the U.S. would be ordering replacements.

 

[Harry Bosch]

...

You're very naive if you think that China isn't very carefully studying how the west stands up to or not Russia in it's war with Ukraine.
You keep skipping the inflation issue. I've read your other posts blaming Biden for inflation. According to the CATO institute, the invasion is responsible for a $1.00 increase in gas in the US. How much do you think that is costing the tax payers? How much of inflation is due to the war? Yea, I'd trade billions for trillions any day of the week.

Yeah, I did notice you are very free and easy with US tax payer money. You look at this as an investment. A weird way of looking at it.

Those weapons were built for the purpose of destroying Russian military. They are doing exactly what they were intended for.

The fact that it's Ukrainian fingers on the triggers doesn't change this. Unless they are using them less efficiently than we would have there's really no value being lost--the billions were already spent. There is a huge gain, though--the Russian military has been exposed as nearly worthless, their stocks of high-tech weapons are pretty much depleted and it's being done without any real risk of turning into WWIII. This is an incredibly good deal for us and would remain so even if we didn't care one bit about the fate of Ukraine.

It is an incredibly good deal for the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech in 1961. The manufacturers of those sophisticated weapons systems are receiving a windfall from the sales and the politicians pushing for the use of those systems are receiving their campaign contributions and possible future lucrative positions when they lose their seats or retire from their government position.

I would say that Ike's fearful warning has proven fairly prophetic. Politicians have managed to pretty much keep the U.S. involved in wars continually somewhere in the world since WWII.

Reality check: The manufacturers aren't getting anything--the weapons being sent are from stockpiles, not fresh manufacture.

The weapons removed from stockpiles are restocked with new weapons which are purchased from the manufacturers. The military is not going to deplete their stock of weapons that they had to convince Congress were absolutely necessary to protect the nation.

The weapons manufacturers and those who invest in them understand this. For instance Lockheed makes several high tech weapons systems like the HIMARS and their stock on Feb. 23rd was $389/share. March 1st Lockheed stock was $456/share. Lockheed and investors knew that the U.S. would be supplying weapons and not the Ukraine buying them so the U.S. would be ordering replacements.

Yep, a good time to be a western arms manufacturer. But please tell me a better idea to stop the war? Essentially, Ukraine would like the Russian artillery shells to stop. Do you blame them? Not easy and not fun to have missiles and shells blowing up shit all around you. HIMARS system is working to blow these systems up. Also to blow up the ammunition dumps that supply the artillery units. Blow them up at the site is a win-win for everyone.

 

[Harry Bosch]

When are you signing up?

Eldarion Lathria

I understand this emotion. However, just "signing up" to help Ukraine may not be the best thing to do. There are westerners serving in Ukraine right now. However, is everyone a trained soldier? Can you speak the language? How would you coordinate with Ukranian soldiers? The best that westerners can do now is to continue lobbying our governments to keep helping Ukraine; send more aid, more weapons. Continue the boycott. Try to find more economic ways to hurt Russia. And etc.

 

[ZiprHead]

Malcolm Nance went back to rejoin the fighting yesterday.

 

[skepticalbip]

...

You're very naive if you think that China isn't very carefully studying how the west stands up to or not Russia in it's war with Ukraine.
You keep skipping the inflation issue. I've read your other posts blaming Biden for inflation. According to the CATO institute, the invasion is responsible for a $1.00 increase in gas in the US. How much do you think that is costing the tax payers? How much of inflation is due to the war? Yea, I'd trade billions for trillions any day of the week.

Yeah, I did notice you are very free and easy with US tax payer money. You look at this as an investment. A weird way of looking at it.

Those weapons were built for the purpose of destroying Russian military. They are doing exactly what they were intended for.

The fact that it's Ukrainian fingers on the triggers doesn't change this. Unless they are using them less efficiently than we would have there's really no value being lost--the billions were already spent. There is a huge gain, though--the Russian military has been exposed as nearly worthless, their stocks of high-tech weapons are pretty much depleted and it's being done without any real risk of turning into WWIII. This is an incredibly good deal for us and would remain so even if we didn't care one bit about the fate of Ukraine.

It is an incredibly good deal for the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech in 1961. The manufacturers of those sophisticated weapons systems are receiving a windfall from the sales and the politicians pushing for the use of those systems are receiving their campaign contributions and possible future lucrative positions when they lose their seats or retire from their government position.

I would say that Ike's fearful warning has proven fairly prophetic. Politicians have managed to pretty much keep the U.S. involved in wars continually somewhere in the world since WWII.

Reality check: The manufacturers aren't getting anything--the weapons being sent are from stockpiles, not fresh manufacture.

The weapons removed from stockpiles are restocked with new weapons which are purchased from the manufacturers. The military is not going to deplete their stock of weapons that they had to convince Congress were absolutely necessary to protect the nation.

The weapons manufacturers and those who invest in them understand this. For instance Lockheed makes several high tech weapons systems like the HIMARS and their stock on Feb. 23rd was $389/share. March 1st Lockheed stock was $456/share. Lockheed and investors knew that the U.S. would be supplying weapons and not the Ukraine buying them so the U.S. would be ordering replacements.

Yep, a good time to be a western arms manufacturer. But please tell me a better idea to stop the war? Essentially, Ukraine would like the Russian artillery shells to stop. Do you blame them? Not easy and not fun to have missiles and shells blowing up shit all around you. HIMARS system is working to blow these systems up. Also to blow up the ammunition dumps that supply the artillery units. Blow them up at the site is a win-win for everyone.

That question assumes that the U.S. is and should be the world's police force. The Ukraine problem is a threat to the Ukraine and should be a concern for the E.U. not so much a concern for the U.S. The EU has five times the population of Russia and many, many times the GDP of Russia. If they saw Russia as a problem and wanted to do something about it then they should. If the E.U. had stood up to Russia when they invaded the Ukraine and annexed the Crimean Peninsula from the Ukraine in 2014 then the EU and especially Germany would be buying Ukrainian gas and oil rather than Russian gas and oil. Also Russia would have learned that expansion was not acceptable to his neighbors and the Ukraine wouldn't be in its current situation.

 

[Harry Bosch]

...

You're very naive if you think that China isn't very carefully studying how the west stands up to or not Russia in it's war with Ukraine.
You keep skipping the inflation issue. I've read your other posts blaming Biden for inflation. According to the CATO institute, the invasion is responsible for a $1.00 increase in gas in the US. How much do you think that is costing the tax payers? How much of inflation is due to the war? Yea, I'd trade billions for trillions any day of the week.

Yeah, I did notice you are very free and easy with US tax payer money. You look at this as an investment. A weird way of looking at it.

Those weapons were built for the purpose of destroying Russian military. They are doing exactly what they were intended for.

The fact that it's Ukrainian fingers on the triggers doesn't change this. Unless they are using them less efficiently than we would have there's really no value being lost--the billions were already spent. There is a huge gain, though--the Russian military has been exposed as nearly worthless, their stocks of high-tech weapons are pretty much depleted and it's being done without any real risk of turning into WWIII. This is an incredibly good deal for us and would remain so even if we didn't care one bit about the fate of Ukraine.

It is an incredibly good deal for the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech in 1961. The manufacturers of those sophisticated weapons systems are receiving a windfall from the sales and the politicians pushing for the use of those systems are receiving their campaign contributions and possible future lucrative positions when they lose their seats or retire from their government position.

I would say that Ike's fearful warning has proven fairly prophetic. Politicians have managed to pretty much keep the U.S. involved in wars continually somewhere in the world since WWII.

Reality check: The manufacturers aren't getting anything--the weapons being sent are from stockpiles, not fresh manufacture.

The weapons removed from stockpiles are restocked with new weapons which are purchased from the manufacturers. The military is not going to deplete their stock of weapons that they had to convince Congress were absolutely necessary to protect the nation.

The weapons manufacturers and those who invest in them understand this. For instance Lockheed makes several high tech weapons systems like the HIMARS and their stock on Feb. 23rd was $389/share. March 1st Lockheed stock was $456/share. Lockheed and investors knew that the U.S. would be supplying weapons and not the Ukraine buying them so the U.S. would be ordering replacements.

Yep, a good time to be a western arms manufacturer. But please tell me a better idea to stop the war? Essentially, Ukraine would like the Russian artillery shells to stop. Do you blame them? Not easy and not fun to have missiles and shells blowing up shit all around you. HIMARS system is working to blow these systems up. Also to blow up the ammunition dumps that supply the artillery units. Blow them up at the site is a win-win for everyone.

That question assumes that the U.S. is and should be the world's police force. The Ukraine problem is a threat to the Ukraine and should be a concern for the E.U. not so much a concern for the U.S. The EU has five times the population of Russia and many, many times the GDP of Russia. If they saw Russia as a problem and wanted to do something about it then they should. If the E.U. had stood up to Russia when they invaded the Ukraine and annexed the Crimean Peninsula from the Ukraine in 2014 then the EU and especially Germany would be buying Ukrainian gas and oil rather than Russian gas and oil. Also Russia would have learned that expansion was not acceptable to his neighbors and the Ukraine wouldn't be in its current situation.

You're a good poster. But I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over. Please just read my responses to Jason above. I believe that if Russian had taken over Ukraine and "denazify" it; that they would have next attached the Baltics and then Poland. They probably would have stopped there as we know now that Nato probably would have stomped their bully asses. But we didn't know that then. I also believe that China is watching the west's response to Ukraine. If we had not helped, there is little doubt in my mind that they would be attacking Taiwan. Again, I don't want to insult you. But our economy is very dependent upon the supply chain. The supply chain is in chaos right now due to Russian imperialism (you might not think that this affects you, but i guaranty you that it does). But imagine our supply chain if the Taiwanese chips were destroyed from the supply chain.

My final point is that I'm sorry to say, but we are pot committed. We already have our weapons in Ukraine. We're already on Russia's naughty list.

 

[skepticalbip]

...

You're very naive if you think that China isn't very carefully studying how the west stands up to or not Russia in it's war with Ukraine.
You keep skipping the inflation issue. I've read your other posts blaming Biden for inflation. According to the CATO institute, the invasion is responsible for a $1.00 increase in gas in the US. How much do you think that is costing the tax payers? How much of inflation is due to the war? Yea, I'd trade billions for trillions any day of the week.

Yeah, I did notice you are very free and easy with US tax payer money. You look at this as an investment. A weird way of looking at it.

Those weapons were built for the purpose of destroying Russian military. They are doing exactly what they were intended for.

The fact that it's Ukrainian fingers on the triggers doesn't change this. Unless they are using them less efficiently than we would have there's really no value being lost--the billions were already spent. There is a huge gain, though--the Russian military has been exposed as nearly worthless, their stocks of high-tech weapons are pretty much depleted and it's being done without any real risk of turning into WWIII. This is an incredibly good deal for us and would remain so even if we didn't care one bit about the fate of Ukraine.

It is an incredibly good deal for the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech in 1961. The manufacturers of those sophisticated weapons systems are receiving a windfall from the sales and the politicians pushing for the use of those systems are receiving their campaign contributions and possible future lucrative positions when they lose their seats or retire from their government position.

I would say that Ike's fearful warning has proven fairly prophetic. Politicians have managed to pretty much keep the U.S. involved in wars continually somewhere in the world since WWII.

Reality check: The manufacturers aren't getting anything--the weapons being sent are from stockpiles, not fresh manufacture.

The weapons removed from stockpiles are restocked with new weapons which are purchased from the manufacturers. The military is not going to deplete their stock of weapons that they had to convince Congress were absolutely necessary to protect the nation.

The weapons manufacturers and those who invest in them understand this. For instance Lockheed makes several high tech weapons systems like the HIMARS and their stock on Feb. 23rd was $389/share. March 1st Lockheed stock was $456/share. Lockheed and investors knew that the U.S. would be supplying weapons and not the Ukraine buying them so the U.S. would be ordering replacements.

Yep, a good time to be a western arms manufacturer. But please tell me a better idea to stop the war? Essentially, Ukraine would like the Russian artillery shells to stop. Do you blame them? Not easy and not fun to have missiles and shells blowing up shit all around you. HIMARS system is working to blow these systems up. Also to blow up the ammunition dumps that supply the artillery units. Blow them up at the site is a win-win for everyone.

That question assumes that the U.S. is and should be the world's police force. The Ukraine problem is a threat to the Ukraine and should be a concern for the E.U. not so much a concern for the U.S. The EU has five times the population of Russia and many, many times the GDP of Russia. If they saw Russia as a problem and wanted to do something about it then they should. If the E.U. had stood up to Russia when they invaded the Ukraine and annexed the Crimean Peninsula from the Ukraine in 2014 then the EU and especially Germany would be buying Ukrainian gas and oil rather than Russian gas and oil. Also Russia would have learned that expansion was not acceptable to his neighbors and the Ukraine wouldn't be in its current situation.

You're a good poster. But I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over. Please just read my responses to Jason above. I believe that if Russian had taken over Ukraine and "denazify" it; that they would have next attached the Baltics and then Poland. They probably would have stopped there as we know now that Nato probably would have stomped their bully asses. But we didn't know that then. I also believe that China is watching the west's response to Ukraine. If we had not helped, there is little doubt in my mind that they would be attacking Taiwan. Again, I don't want to insult you. But our economy is very dependent upon the supply chain. The supply chain is in chaos right now due to Russian imperialism (you might not think that this affects you, but i guaranty you that it does). But imagine our supply chain if the Taiwanese chips were destroyed from the supply chain.

My final point is that I'm sorry to say, but we are pot committed. We already have our weapons in Ukraine. We're already on Russia's naughty list.

I agree that Russia will continue to act the bully unless they are stopped. We just disagree on who should care enough act. How is it that you think that the EU shouldn't be concerned enough to act but that the US should?

 

[laughing dog]

That question assumes that the U.S. is and should be the world's police force. ..

No, it does not. The question is whether it is in the best interests of the US to come to the aid of our friends (i.e. the E.U.) and those whom we would like to be our friends.

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump said at his last rally if elected he would immediately end aid to Ukraine. The crowd cheered.

 

[laughing dog]

Trump said at his last rally if elected he would immediately end aid to Ukraine. The crowd cheered.

Of course one of Putin's bitches would say that.

 

[Jayjay]

I agree that Russia will continue to act the bully unless they are stopped. We just disagree on who should care enough act. How is it that you think that the EU shouldn't be concerned enough to act but that the US should?

Europe isn't up to the task. If US tells EU that Ukraine is their problem, EU will simply fold and Ukraine loses. And then at some later date US will have to come help Europe with much higher cost. Same thing happened in WW1 and WW2.

 

[laughing dog]

I agree that Russia will continue to act the bully unless they are stopped. We just disagree on who should care enough act. How is it that you think that the EU shouldn't be concerned enough to act but that the US should?

Europe isn't up to the task. If US tells EU that Ukraine is their problem, EU will simply fold and Ukraine loses. And then at some later date US will have to come help Europe with much higher cost. Same thing happened in WW1 and WW2.

Or when the US asks for help from the EU, they tell us it is our problem.

 

[skepticalbip]

I agree that Russia will continue to act the bully unless they are stopped. We just disagree on who should care enough act. How is it that you think that the EU shouldn't be concerned enough to act but that the US should?

Europe isn't up to the task. If US tells EU that Ukraine is their problem, EU will simply fold and Ukraine loses. And then at some later date US will have to come help Europe with much higher cost. Same thing happened in WW1 and WW2.

The EU is fully "up to the task" if they are willing. But then why should they be willing to defend themselves as long as there are war hawks in the US to do it for them?

 

[Jayjay]

I agree that Russia will continue to act the bully unless they are stopped. We just disagree on who should care enough act. How is it that you think that the EU shouldn't be concerned enough to act but that the US should?

Europe isn't up to the task. If US tells EU that Ukraine is their problem, EU will simply fold and Ukraine loses. And then at some later date US will have to come help Europe with much higher cost. Same thing happened in WW1 and WW2.

The EU is fully "up to the task" if they are willing. But then why should they be willing to defend themselves as long as there are war hawks in the US to do it for them?

EU countries are helping, but they just don't have the stockpiles. And their addiction to Russian gas and oil is making them vulnerable politically. Left on their own devices, EU would have just preferred to watch on the sidelines.

It's true that if US always bails Europe out, then Europe will never learn to take care of themselves. But not supporting them in a crisis like this is equivalent to teaching a baby to swim by throwing her in the middle of the lake.