Ownership of Greenland is Essential to Our Security

[barbos]

It's not about being stupid;

No, it's about being stupid. You called russians stupid.
All modern nukes require constant and serous maintenance and material replacement, without that they become duds in just a few years.
But according to you, russians forgot all about that after 1991. At the same time you go and bitch about Ukrainian nukes which they according to you gave up in that memorandum. OK,

And what's next? russian nuclear subs don't exist. it's all fiction?

 

[barbos]

The Ukraine war revealed that a lot of Russia's conventional weapons systems fail for lack of maintenance.

It revealed no such thing. You have been lied to.

why should we believe Russia is prioritizing maintenance of weapons that are only for making threats?

Since your premise is BS there is nothing to discuss here.
But very few ordinary weapons in Russia require maintenance. These that do, get that.
The rest just have expiration date.

You are really projecting here. It's US had troubles with some nuke components becasue you have capitalism and have to make money. In Russia military production sector never cares for profit and all factories are working albeit at lower rate.

 

[barbos]

Which isn't surprising given its overall resource limitations

What resource limitation? Russia has functioning nuclear industry. What do you think they do there?

 

[Bomb#20]

It's not about being stupid;

No, it's about being stupid. You called russians stupid.

No, I called them realists. If your boss only budgets enough to keep half your weapons operational, spending that on the weapons you don't intend to use and skimping on the ones you do intend to use would be stupid. I've been working with Russians for years and I never met a stupid one.

At the same time you go and bitch about Ukrainian nukes which they according to you gave up in that memorandum.

I do? Quote me.

The Ukraine war revealed that a lot of Russia's conventional weapons systems fail for lack of maintenance.

It revealed no such thing. You have been lied to.

Possibly; do you have evidence for this? The scale of the alleged lying operation and the number of people who'd need to be in on the conspiracy would rival the claims of the moon-landing hoaxers. Occam's Razor favors the hypothesis that when you claim it's all lies you're just knee-jerk propagandizing.

Analysis of Land Army Maintenance Techniques in the War in Ukraine

Three

www.armyupress.army.mil

"Based on the available photos, we can talk about the poor basic maintenance of some Russian trucks. Trucks are the backbone of any modern motorized military force. The photo we refer to shows potential tire damage on a multimillion-dollar Pancir-S mobile missile system. With such an expensive combat system, it is expected that its maintenance would be first class. However, this vehicle was left stuck in the Ukrainian mud just a few weeks after the war began.42

If trucks are not moved often, the rubber on their wheels becomes brittle and the tire walls are susceptible to cracks and tears. The problem is common when tires are used with low pressure to cope with the muddy conditions that Russian forces have faced in the Ukrainian plains. When military truck tires are left in one place for months on end, the sidewalls become brittle in the sun and fail. No one has used that Pancir-S for probably a year.43

For Western experts who specialize in U.S. Army truck maintenance issues, the condition of Pancir-S is a revealing mistake. “If you don’t do preventive maintenance for something that important, then it’s very clear that the entire fleet was treated similarly,” they say.44 Photos provide evidence of other trucks with similar problems.45"​

You are really projecting here. It's US had troubles with some nuke components becasue you have capitalism and have to make money. In Russia military production sector never cares for profit and all factories are working albeit at lower rate.

Are you suggesting that having a command economy means resources are infinite?

 

[barbos]

I do? Quote me.

Yes, you as a whole russophobe gang

 

[barbos]

Possibly; do you have evidence for this?

Evidence for US propaganda lies? Yes, plenty, I always post them.

 

[barbos]

However, this vehicle was left stuck in the Ukrainian mud just a few weeks after the war began.42

There are a lot of stuck US made shit in Ukraine. It did not stuck becasue of tires, it stuck because wheels are not fit for conditions. And I m sorry, but russian nukes are in perfect working order.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

FIFY.

Not following. Are you implying that Russia does not have nuclear weapons?

You have packages with fissile material and explosives.

Whether they will actually produce a nuclear yield is quite another matter.

Yes, we are stupid.

I'm not saying you (Russia) are stupid. I'm saying your system is corrupt enough that few if any of your bombs will have been adequately maintained.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And no matter how quiet you are, you’re always vulnerable to active sonar from air assets that you can’t shoot.

Cool, so subs are useless, is that what you are saying?
Why US have them then?

Subs aren't a very good idea in an area where your opponent can put up helos. But helos don't fly all that far and there's an awful lot of ocean.

What makes you think you can put them?

I think you misunderstood something as your question does not make sense.

I'm saying that sub-hunting helos work pretty well at protecting small pieces of ocean--but there is far more ocean than there are helos or places to operate from. And your helos use active sonar--that means you need a lot of luck to catch a sub without it knowing and slinking away. You can in all probability keep the subs away from your fleet--but your oilers are another matter.

 

[unapologetic]

MSM is pretty extreme, you just got used to it.

You just got used to the extreme right calling everything else MSM.

On the basis of you parroting MSM propaganda

The term MSM is ultra right wing propaganda.
FauxNews is as main stream as any. (unfortunately) And is 95% propaganda.

Since your premise is BS there is nothing to discuss here.

So stop. You are just dragging the BS out for fun. (Or FUD.)

 

[barbos]

You just got used to the extreme right calling everything else MSM.

They are not the only ones using this term. Extreme sane wing uses that term as well.

 

[barbos]

And no matter how quiet you are, you’re always vulnerable to active sonar from air assets that you can’t shoot.

Cool, so subs are useless, is that what you are saying?
Why US have them then?

Subs aren't a very good idea in an area where your opponent can put up helos. But helos don't fly all that far and there's an awful lot of ocean.

What makes you think you can put them?

I think you misunderstood something as your question does not make sense.

I'm saying that sub-hunting helos work pretty well at protecting small pieces of ocean--but there is far more ocean than there are helos or places to operate from. And your helos use active sonar--that means you need a lot of luck to catch a sub without it knowing and slinking away. You can in all probability keep the subs away from your fleet--but your oilers are another matter.

And I was saying that russian subs are pretty good if not better than yours. And that's all I was saying. I don't know why are you bringing up your helos.

 

[barbos]

FIFY.

Not following. Are you implying that Russia does not have nuclear weapons?

You have packages with fissile material and explosives.

Whether they will actually produce a nuclear yield is quite another matter.

Yes, we are stupid.

I'm not saying you (Russia) are stupid. I'm saying your system is corrupt enough that few if any of your bombs will have been adequately maintained.

And I calling it Bullshit. And it fact it is your system is corrupt where MIC runs circles around your elected idiots, bribing them into buying your overpriced useless shit like F35.
Russian nukes are not serviced by private companies which can have incentive to cut corners and scam. They are serviced by state owned entities and servicing is pretty straightforward, you just replace components at regular time interval with newly produced on state owned nuclear facilities. Missiles itselfs are regularly test-launched.

 

[SLD]

And no matter how quiet you are, you’re always vulnerable to active sonar from air assets that you can’t shoot.

Cool, so subs are useless, is that what you are saying?
Why US have them then?

Subs aren't a very good idea in an area where your opponent can put up helos. But helos don't fly all that far and there's an awful lot of ocean.

What makes you think you can put them?

I think you misunderstood something as your question does not make sense.

I'm saying that sub-hunting helos work pretty well at protecting small pieces of ocean--but there is far more ocean than there are helos or places to operate from. And your helos use active sonar--that means you need a lot of luck to catch a sub without it knowing and slinking away. You can in all probability keep the subs away from your fleet--but your oilers are another matter.

And I was saying that russian subs are pretty good if not better than yours. And that's all I was saying. I don't know why are you bringing up your helos.

Because sub v sub isn’t that big of an issue. Air assets are the best ASW platform in open ocean.

And s for which ones are better, I could explain why you’re wrong, but . . . Then I’d have to kill you.

 

[unapologetic]

And I calling it Bullshit.

It's all bullshit. The military doesn't want reliable info on their weapons getting to the other side.

As I see it, the Stuart M3 tank was the best tank ever made.
My sources: I had relatives that built the Stuarts, And I know the guys at the Stuart museum. They wouldn't lie to me.
The Stuart is battle-tested, and retired, so no need for misinformation.
If Barb wants to be believed, he needs to name his sources. Or STFU.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The US has 11 carriers; 9 Ticonderoga class Cruisers; 73 Arleigh-Burke destroyers; and 25 Littoral Combat Ships, all of which can carry Seahawks.

Surface ships are useless. They are not even that useful against houthis, forget about using them against Russia or China.

Surface ships mostly exist to protect the carriers, although they can serve as escorts for unarmed ships in low threat environments.

Those carriers most certainly are a threat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The US has 11 carriers; 9 Ticonderoga class Cruisers; 73 Arleigh-Burke destroyers; and 25 Littoral Combat Ships, all of which can carry Seahawks.

Surface ships are useless. They are not even that useful against houties, forget about using them against Russia or China.

Western naval ships are far better designed than the Moskva Reef my dude.

Yeah, what was supposed to be an AAW cruiser failed to stop two cruise missiles. When you look at the weapons on it that's actually not that surprising. Most of it's firepower is SA-6s--which can't engage a sea-skimmer. Ukraine attacked during rough seas--by the time the sea skimmers could be picked out from the waves it had two missiles and two guns that were each capable of only one engagement cycle. And that would have required an immediate recognition and engagement--if the weapons weren't in automatic (and they very well might not have been--they were busy watching drones that were in the SA-6 envelope but weren't worth expending a missile on) the operators would have had a few seconds to realize what was up.

The fact that Ukraine even tried throwing just two missiles at it clearly shows they knew how badly impaired it's defenses were.

 

[barbos]

Because sub v sub isn’t that big of an issue. Air assets are the best ASW platform in open ocean.

You are assuming having Air assets.

 

[barbos]

Those carriers most certainly are a threat.

To men on it.

 

[barbos]

It's all bullshit. The military doesn't want reliable info on their weapons getting to the other side.

Does not prevent the usual experts here to claim superiority of american shit.