• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Ukraine - These are the weapons needed.

maxparrish

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,262
Location
SF Bay Area
Basic Beliefs
Libertarian-Conservative, Agnostic.
Should the Ukraine survive the next two years, at least it is likely that a President with backbone will be elected - one of the few reasons to welcome Hillary.

The Ukrainians are in desperate need of more than Obama's trivial and half-hearted ace bandages and aspirin - they need real weapons and real military supplies. Of most importance are those weapons that can be used in urban warfare and counter-insurgency.

There are plenty of choices on the arms market, but the Ukraine needs weapons that are from reliable suppliers (which leaves out the fickle french and the spineless Germans). US weapons are fine, so are others. Among the weapons that ought to be supplied, post haste:

1) The M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS) was designed to provide direct fire support for infantry units. The MGS is one of 10 variants of the Stryker series of wheeled armored vehicle. The M1128 was designed for low-intensity combats and takes some of the main battle tank roles. Deliveries of first pre-production vehicles commenced in 2002 and vehicle entered service with the US Army in 2007.
It is armed with a M68A1E4 105-mm rifled tank gun. It is a modified version of the tank gun, used on the M1 Abrams and M60 series main battle tanks. This gun is fitted with an autoloader. The gun is fully-stabilized and can fire accurately on the move. The Mobile Gun System fires high-explosive, anti-tank and canister rounds.

stryker_mgs.jpg

images


or the ASCOD system of fighting vehicles:

ascod2.jpg


2) Anti-Tank Missiles

a) Rafael, based in Haifa, Israel, manufactures the Spike family of anti-armour weapons. The weapons are lightweight fire-and-forget anti-tank missiles and use electro-optical and fibre-optic technologies. The systems are used by infantry soldiers, special rapid reaction forces, ground forces and helicopter aircrew.
Spike anti-tank missile family

The Spike family includes: Spike-SR with a range of 800m, Spike-MR (Gill) with range of 2,500m, Spike-LR with 4,000m range and Spike-ER (formerly known as NTD Dandy) with a range of 8,000m. Spike-LR and Spike-ER can also be fitted on light combat vehicles and a package for mounting Spike-ER on helicopters is also available. The Spike missile system is currently in production and in service with the Israeli, Dutch, Chilean, Colombian, Finnish, German, Polish, Italian, Peruvian, Spanish and Singaporean armed forces. Can be mounted on Infantry fighting vehicles (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/gill/).

b) Javelin Missile

The Javelin is considered the world's best shoulder fired anti-tank weapon and 12 nations currently operate the Javelin under foreign military sales from the US. Each missile weighs 11.8kg, while its command launch unit (CLU) and round weigh 6.4kg and 15.9kg respectively. The Javelin employs a long-wave infrared (LWIR) seeker for guidance to destroy tanks, bunkers, buildings, small vessel and low-speed helicopters with a high hit probability. It can also be fired from tripods, light armoured vehicles, trucks, and remotely piloted vehicles. It carries a tandem shaped charge enabling a maximum range of 2,500m.

c) LAHAT - Laser Homing Attack Missile

The laser homing attack missile (LAHAT) is a light-weight anti-tank guided missile produced by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). It was initially developed for Merkava tanks, and can be fired from vehicles, helicopters, vessels and remote installations.
The LAHAT is a very compact missile with a length of 975mm and diameter of 104.5mm. It weighs 12.5kg and relies on semi-active laser (SAL) guidance to engage targets using direct or indirect designation system.

The missile can destroy stationary and moving targets at ranges up to 8km with pin-point accuracy. The high-performance armour piercing warhead ensures the LAHAT can penetrate even add-on reactive armour.

d)The next generation light antitank weapon (NLAW) developed by Saab Bofors Dynamics, is the first ever non-expert short-range anti-tank missile system operable by an individual soldier. The NLAW is in service with the armed forces of the United Kingdom, Finland, Luxembourg and Sweden. Each missile launch unit weighs just 12.5kg enabling one-man-portability in confined spaces. The NLAW weapon system approaches the target guided by predicted line of sight (PLOS). It employs overfly top attack (OTA) mode for tanks and other armoured targets, while direct attack (DA) mode is used for non-armoured targets. The single shape charge warhead of the NLAW has been designed to defeat modern MBTs fitted with ERA.

3) MBTanks - Of the many options:

a) The upgraded T72, the PT-91 Twardy. While the Leopard II would be the preferred option, the Germans are unreliable and spineless. The PT-91 (Polish) is a fully modernized tank with reactive armor, advanced fired control, auto-loading etc.

300px-PT91_Twardy_MSPO09.jpg


b) Merkava LIC - Modernized for urban warfare (and able to transport and be operated by minimally trained soldiers).

merkava4-lic.jpg


4) SP Artillery - G6, South Africa. One of the best, originally designed by the artillery genius Gerald Bull.

ar_sph_g6_o1.jpg


"However, the best of the towed guns – at least on paper - is from South Africa. The original G5 was developed by Dr. Gerald Bull (a real genius with guns, who was killed by an Israeli hit squad after he went to work for Saddam Hussein). Weighing in at 14 tons, it can reach out with conventional shells and hit targets as far as 39 kilometers away. The newer G5-52 extends this guns reach to just over 55 kilometers. Like the Russians, South Africa created a self-propelled version of this gun, the G6 (with the newer version being the G6-52). These guns reach even further (the extended-range version can fire “velocity-enhanced” projectiles as far as 67 kilometers)." http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2005/200577234250.asp
 
Last edited:
If the US starts providing weapons, wouldn't Russia just keep matching it to maintain the balance?

I think it would be better to provide aid for the displaced and at most, defensive equipment like body armor and radars and so forth.
 
Last edited:
Great, Max wants another arms race with the Russians, a significant increase in the bloody hostilities that are taking place, and a return to Cold War politics. That'll surely increase world peace and stability... yeah right :rolleyes:

The Ukraine-Russia conflict is primarily one that affects Europe. Why not let Europe decide the best course of action and wait for them to ask for our help and then decide accordingly?

Max, Team America, World Police was not meant to be taken literally.
 
war........War.......WAR.......WARWARWAR..............................WARWARWARWARWAR!!!!!!!!!!

What is it good for?
 
Max, was the front of your shorts a little... damp, after you wrote this?
 
I would be in favor of sending those arms over the following condition: they are operated by those who wish them to be sent.
 
Jayjay said:
If the US starts providing weapons, wouldn't Russia just keep matching it to maintain the balance?

I think it would be better to provide aid for the displaced and at most, defensive equipment like body armor and radars and so forth.

Great, Max wants another arms race with the Russians, a significant increase in the bloody hostilities that are taking place, and a return to Cold War politics. That'll surely increase world peace and stability... yeah right :rolleyes:

The Ukraine-Russia conflict is primarily one that affects Europe. Why not let Europe decide the best course of action and wait for them to ask for our help and then decide accordingly?

Max, Team America, World Police was not meant to be taken literally.

The other replies to me (except LD's) were of similar opinion but were barren of content. However, I assure you that "Max" does not "want another arms race with the Russians". Rather Max has, for the last year, wanted to see Obama demonstrate greater vision and leadership than ineffective (and belated) economic sanctions and repeated jaw boning to a bemused Putin.

The reality is that Putin has, for sometime, made it clear that he believes that the breakup of the Soviet Union was a tragedy. He has also made it clear, starting with Georgia, and continuing with his massive reform and modernization of the Russian military, that he has the intention and increasing military capability to slowly consume his neighbors. His success in the Crimea, and the wests initial timid 'retaliation' by canceling the oligarchy members credit cards (and the like) only confirmed to him that the US, and its allies, would roll-over and whimper. (Indeed, Obama exposed his belly by assuring the Russians no lethal weapons would be given to Ukraine for its defense).

So after a year of ineffective sanctions (even with plummeting oil prices) Putin intentions remain, and either the West stands up to the rebuilding of a new Russian Empire threatening the security and independence of European nations (and engendering the need for an new and expensive remilitarization of Europe) or it continues down a path of appeasement and helpless concessions to a remaking of the Russian empire. And like all chains of appeasements to totalitarians it will eventually end either with war or finlandization.

The appropriate response to Russian aggression was only frightening to the soapy headed left (and the pro Russian far right neo-isolationists). To the sober minded it was no more "threatening" than arms exports to dozens of nations (done by all the major powers) for many decades. It was not a new Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. It was simply supplying the arsenal of democracy to a country whose survival is in our interests - just as the US has done for Israel, Taiwan, post war Korea, Afghanistan, many other countries (just as Russia and China has done for many states and insurgencies).

From the outset had Obama threatened to supply lethal weapons and US re-deployment of defensive missiles to Poland, Putin may well have not invaded the Crimea, or at least not started the war in the east. But having openly taken those options of the table, Obama signalled acquiescence and spinelessness to Russian aggression.

The least the West could do is provide the weapons the Ukrainians are in desperate need of. Short of "boots on the ground" in the Ukraine, this is the best option available.
 
Great, Max wants another arms race with the Russians, a significant increase in the bloody hostilities that are taking place, and a return to Cold War politics. That'll surely increase world peace and stability... yeah right :rolleyes:

The Ukraine-Russia conflict is primarily one that affects Europe. Why not let Europe decide the best course of action and wait for them to ask for our help and then decide accordingly?

Max, Team America, World Police was not meant to be taken literally.

The other replies to me (except LD's) were of similar opinion but were barren of content. However, I assure you that "Max" does not "want another arms race with the Russians". Rather Max has, for the last year, wanted to see Obama demonstrate greater vision and leadership than ineffective (and belated) economic sanctions and repeated jaw boning to a bemused Putin.

The reality is that Putin has, for sometime, made it clear that he believes that the breakup of the Soviet Union was a tragedy. He has also made it clear, starting with Georgia, and continuing with his massive reform and modernization of the Russian military, that he has the intention and increasing military capability to slowly consume his neighbors. His success in the Crimea, and the wests initial timid 'retaliation' by canceling the oligarchy members credit cards (and the like) only confirmed to him that the US, and its allies, would roll-over and whimper. (Indeed, Obama exposed his belly by assuring the Russians no lethal weapons would be given to Ukraine for its defense).

So after a year of ineffective sanctions (even with plummeting oil prices) Putin intentions remain, and either the West stands up to the rebuilding of a new Russian Empire threatening the security and independence of European nations (and engendering the need for an new and expensive remilitarization of Europe) or it continues down a path of appeasement and helpless concessions to a remaking of the Russian empire. And like all chains of appeasements to totalitarians it will eventually end either with war or finlandization.

The appropriate response to Russian aggression was only frightening to the soapy headed left (and the pro Russian far right neo-isolationists). To the sober minded it was no more "threatening" than arms exports to dozens of nations (done by all the major powers) for many decades. It was not a new Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. It was simply supplying the arsenal of democracy to a country whose survival is in our interests - just as the US has done for Israel, Taiwan, post war Korea, Afghanistan, many other countries (just as Russia and China has done for many states and insurgencies).

From the outset had Obama threatened to supply lethal weapons and US re-deployment of defensive missiles to Poland, Putin may well have not invaded the Crimea, or at least not started the war in the east. But having openly taken those options of the table, Obama signalled acquiescence and spinelessness to Russian aggression.

The least the West could do is provide the weapons the Ukrainians are in desperate need of. Short of "boots on the ground" in the Ukraine, this is the best option available.

Obama and the US is not the only sole member of "The West". That is where your analysis utterly fails. Europe needs to come to a consensus on what needs to be done (seeing as they have by far the largest stake in the situation), with the US lending advice and a helping hand with what they decide plus humanitarian aid for any victims of the conflict. Putin's actions don't threaten US territory and we have no treaty obligations to defend Ukraine against Russian hostilities.

And, frankly, your recommendation is very sketchy. The Russian public is very much behind Putin in this conflict. They will see further US involvement as license to increase Russian involvement, implementing a tit-for-tat strategy, further escalating hostilities in the region.

I would go with the consensus of foreign policy experts in this matter (whatever it happens to be), with Europe leading the way, over your simplistic analysis. If the consensus is to provide defensive arms for Ukraine, and Ukraine requests our aid for such, then so be it.
 
Last edited:
I have the feeling that furious mastrubation was going on while the OP was written.
 
MaxParish for President.
Can someone explain to me what produces a mind like Max's?
I'm genuinely asking.
 
Should the Ukraine survive the next two years, at least it is likely that a President with backbone will be elected - one of the few reasons to welcome Hillary.

The Ukrainians are in desperate need of more than Obama's trivial and half-hearted ace bandages and aspirin - they need real weapons and real military supplies. Of most importance are those weapons that can be used in urban warfare and counter-insurgency.
Why do you want other people sons to needlessly die? Why don't you go and fight?
People are dying there with cluster bombs you fuckwits in America supplied them with. Apparently phosphorus has been used too. Are you Americans the biggest fuckwits on the planet that you want to send more weapons over and see more people killed?

We need to go and try to help these poor souls make peace if we can, not give them more of our satanic weapons of mass destruction.
 
How would increasing the amount of military equipment on both sides make the situation better?
 
I believe George Carlin correctly identified this as 'bigger-dick foreign policy'.
 
Back
Top Bottom