36 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

Ninety one billion so far. Biden wants another 37 Billion after they bombed Poland. 🤔

Nahhhh the numbers I heard were definitely north of one trillion. 

1 minute ago, Boogyman said:

Nahhhh the numbers I heard were definitely north of one trillion. 

Ok?

1 hour ago, DEagle7 said:

I forgot am I on the British side or the Pope's side? @Abracadabra I need clarification.

They make you think it’s one or the other and then when no one expects it, bam, a British pope.  Game over.

 

21 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

He's making a joke because he thinks 100B to a dirty country(albeit less dirty than russia) isnt a big deal and we should spend whatever we have to, to make sure Ukraine wins

No, that's actually not the joke. Keep responding to me while you have me on ignore though, it makes me laugh.

In a bit of a tight spot there, Zelensky?

That S-300 missile flew west in order to hit Poland. Wouldn't Ukrainian missiles be fired east in order to intercept Russian missiles flying west? Why would a Ukrainian missile be fired west? 

Unless.....it was intentional. Ukraine attacked Poland on purpose and then, with the help of the western press, tried to blame it on Russia. Yet another false flag.

The photographic evidence put the kibosh on this stunt, thankfully. 

Now, the Pied Piper has no choice but to keep the same tune, to continue spouting an absurd lie even his most ardent supporters know is complete BS. Otherwise it becomes obvious that he deliberately attacked Poland. 

The Poles are trying to give Zelensky an out by having him admit it was a malfunctioning Ukrainian S-300. The whole issue would be buried faster than the poor victims. 

Zelensky is not having it. He's been able to get away with blatant lie after blatant lie since he was installed, so why stop now.

The bloom is off the rose.

32 minutes ago, Abracadabra said:

 

The bloom is off the rose.

leave your mother out of this

Oh boy, BTardy is back. Joy. 

13 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said:

leave your mother out of this

The resemblance is uncanny so your mistake is forgiven.

36 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

His name is Juan and he's wearing pointy-toed shoes, standing on Ma-i like the Colossus of Rhodes. 

9 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

 

To this point Israel has remained pretty neutral in return for the Russians tacitly giving them freedom to attack targets in Syria.  With the Russian withdrawals of men and equipment from Syria, I guess Israel is feeling a bit less constrained.

53 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said:

His name is Juan and he's wearing pointy-toed shoes, standing on Ma-i like the Colossus of Rhodes. 

When twitter stops working, how the hell am I going to know how much ass Ukraine is whooping? This is really disappointing. 

 

 

 

IOW what we knew all along: Russia invaded Ukraine through proxies in Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014. 

Traces of explosives found at Nord Stream pipelines, Sweden says

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/18/business/nord-stream-explosive-traces-sweden-intl/index.html

Quote

Investigators have found traces of explosives at the site of the damaged Nord Stream pipelines, confirming that sabotage had taken place, a Swedish prosecutor said on Friday.

Swedish and Danish authorities are investigating four holes in the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines which link Russia and Germany via the Baltic Sea and have become a flashpoint in the Ukraine crisis.

Denmark last month said a preliminary investigation had shown that the leaks were caused by powerful explosions.

"Analysis that has now been carried out shows traces of explosives on several of the objects that were recovered,” the Swedish Prosecution Authority said in a statement.

"The investigation is highly complex and comprehensive. The ongoing probe will determine whether any suspects can be identified,” it added.

 

2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

 

 

1 more likely than 2 but can be both

51 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

you're not on ignore. 

I love watching the dumb ish you have to say

I must be the only one left then lol.

Anyway, you were dead wrong about what you thought the joke was, as you usually are.

At this point, I'm pretty sure this is how they are deploying troops

 

 

4 hours ago, paco said:

At this point, I'm pretty sure this is how they are deploying troops

 

 

 

11 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

 

 

The Russians have launched a LOT of cruise missiles, I would bet on door#2.  The stocks of large, expensive precision guided missiles any country maintains are generally pretty limited. Hell, at one point in the Vietnam War U.S. fighter-bombers were flying with partial bomb loads because we were running out of plain old, dumb bombs, and in 1999 the U.S. was facing the same missile situation as Russia is now after using a bunch of cruise missiles in the Middle East and the Balkans and had to convert some of its nuclear versions to conventional ones.  LINK to a very good 1999 L.A. Times article   BTW, I would worry about the number of certain U.S. stores right now.  There have been public rumblings from the DoD about depleting our stocks of various weapons by sending so many to the Ukraine.

Quote

1999 Article L.A. Times

The U.S. military, strained by continuing operations against Iraq as well as NATO’s bombing campaign in Yugoslavia, is running low on some of the very weapons it needs to fight the wars of its choice.  The nation’s stockpile of cruise missiles--the most versatile of the current generation of "smart” weapons--is being depleted by the unexpectedly large number of attacks--and at a time when there are no production lines in operation.

Low supplies of the missiles are unlikely to hurt the Balkan campaign, but key members of Congress and a wide spectrum of defense analysts say the shortages could limit, perhaps severely, the ability of the U.S. to respond to future provocations. Shortages also could make it more dangerous for the military to fulfill its key post-Cold War goal of being able to fight two major conflicts nearly simultaneously in different parts of the world.  "We don’t know how long this current bombing campaign will continue,” said Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, a high-ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Obviously, if it goes on for some time, we could have a problem.”

Only days after the air war against Yugoslavia began March 24, Defense Department officials acknowledged that the Air Force was running short of conventional air-launched cruise missiles, the stubby, small-winged weapons that allow the nation’s aging B-52 bombers to strike targets from great distances without substantial risk to themselves.  More recently, Navy officials have said they are replenishing supplies of a sea-launched version of the cruise missile--called the Tomahawk--by, among other things, refurbishing some 200 older missiles now in storage.  "We need more than we have in order to be comfortable,” said John Douglass, assistant Navy secretary for research and acquisitions until he became president of the Aerospace Industries Assn. in September. "It’s gradually dawning on all of us that the mean time between crises where we might want to use them is much shorter than anybody thought a few years ago.”

Analysts and key lawmakers say the missile shortfall illustrates some of the conflicting pressures on U.S. armed forces in an era of changing goals and declining budgets. And it offers a case study in the mismatch between public expectations, which were sent sky high by the performance of missiles and other smart weapons during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and military capacities, which lag behind.  "We were spoiled by Desert Storm,” said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a member of the Armed Services Committee and a Republican presidential aspirant. "The lesson [from Yugoslavia] is that if you are going to bomb with these kinds of expensive weapons for a long time, you’re going to have shortages.” As long as the U.S. strategy is to strike from long distances to avoid casualties, he said, "you’re never going to have enough.”

Exactly how much of a threat the missile shortfall poses is difficult to judge. At least in part, analysts say, this is because the military measures readiness against its two-conflict yardstick at a time when the typical conflict consists of the quick, punitive strikes that the United States, often with a coalition of allies, has conducted in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and Bosnia-Herzegovina.  "Basically, we have a defense strategy that measures what we are least likely to do and a defense practice for which we have done very little planning,” said Daniel Goure, a former Bush administration Pentagon official and now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

The shortage of air-launched missiles is startling. Although the Air Force will not release exact figures, most observers estimate that stocks have fallen from a high of about 300 to fewer than 100. At that level, many analysts say, military leaders may soon have to slow or even stop their use of the easily detectable B-52s, which make up one-third of the nation’s long-range bomber force.  The ship-launched Tomahawks are more plentiful, with 2,000 missiles in stock out of an original supply of about 2,700. In addition, Navy officials acknowledge that only about half the 2,000 are immediately available for firing, with the rest in storage or under repair. The Navy has fired more than 400 Tomahawks during a December attack on Iraq and the current conflict against Yugoslavia.

The Clinton administration has asked for $6 billion to pay for the current campaign, almost 10% of it for missiles. "We’re short across the board in munitions, and this is the time to do something about it,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter, (R-El Cajon), chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on procurement.  But Pentagon officials and defense analysts say missile supplies are unlikely to be replenished quickly. There are no cruise missile production lines in operation, and it takes months and, in some cases, more than a year to restart them.

Boeing Co., which built today’s air-launched cruise missiles, initially told the Pentagon that it would take until July of next year to deliver the first of 95 missiles on order, a date it has pushed up to November. However, company officials said it would take several years to supply the more than 230 additional missiles sought by the Defense Department in its $6-billion spending request. Boeing stopped production of a nuclear-tipped version of the cruise missile in 1986 and finished its last conversion of a nuclear missile into a conventional one in 1997.  Raytheon Co., which built the Tomahawk, has said it will take 18 months to deliver the first of what is expected to be a Pentagon order for upgrading 624 older Tomahawks with new satellite guidance systems and better warheads. Raytheon completed its last Tomahawk order in January but said it cannot move faster on the new order because it dismantled its network of suppliers several years ago when it appeared the Navy was not going to buy more missiles.  While military leaders await arrival of the new missile supplies, officials say they are making do with other weapons. These include the Joint Direct Attack Munition, which has a guidance system as sophisticated as that of the missiles but which, analysts say, requires the warplanes delivering them to venture closer to their targets.

Cruise missiles are "the weapons of choice for the kind of conflicts we’ve become involved in in recent years,” said John Pike, a defense analyst with the Federation of American Scientists. "Nothing else fills the bill as well.”  How the military found itself short of missiles is a mix of bad luck, poor planning and, most important, the sea change in the kinds of conflicts the public expects and accepts, analysts and officials said.  Although smart weapons were less than 10% of the total fired during the Gulf War, video footage of missiles slipping down the chimneys of Iraqi bunkers and obliterating them convinced many people that future conflicts could be fought at great distances with virtually no American casualties.  "If there is anything we have learned in the last decade, it is that we cannot bomb indiscriminately because of the public backlash,” said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, a Washington think tank.

Most analysts estimate that 90% of the weapons used so far in the Yugoslav conflict have been precision-guided. "All of a sudden, the Air Force has got a new role,” said Frank Robbins, director of precision strike systems at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.  Those who saw a need to boost missile supplies starting in the early 1990s lost a series of budget skirmishes. And a key missile system, the Tri Service Standoff Attack Missile, was canceled in 1994 after running over budget and failing to meet a series of tests.  The result: "If we had to fight major conflicts, we could, but it would take us longer to prevail at greater losses,” said David Ochmanek, a senior analyst with the Rand Corp. "Right now, we can’t fight the wars we want to.” 

 

Russian desperation seems to fit both

Quote

The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has involved the largest use of land-attack missiles in history, with launches from all basing modes. On 21 March, the Pentagon stated that the "Russians have launched more than 1,100 missiles,” and that "they have also suffered a not-insignificant number of failures of those munitions.” Four days later, the Pentagon added that "they’re still launching a lot of missiles,” but Russia was experiencing "a significant amount of [missile] failure” including "failure to actually launch or failure to hit the target.”

On 4 April, the Pentagon claimed Russia had launched more than 1,400 missiles and that its residual inventory is the lowest in cruise missiles. In late May, Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky stated that Russia had launched 2,154 missiles and Ukraine believes Russia has depleted 60 percent of its precision-missile arsenal. Since April, resupply has been difficult and inventory depletion has continued.

This very large expenditure of missiles was clearly not planned because Russia expected a quick victory. Russia’s efforts to replace its missiles will be very difficult because of cost, production limitations, and the impact of the sanctions. Worse still, from a Russian standpoint, is that the attacks have demonstrated there are significant problems with the performance of Russian cruise missiles.

Excessive Failure Rate

On 25 March, the Pentagon confirmed press reports that various Russian missiles were experiencing failure rates of 20 to 60 percent (failure was defined as the inability to launch or hit the target) with "cruise missiles, particularly air-launched cruise missiles” having the lowest kill rates. Reportedly, some missiles did not explode even when they hit their targets. Thus, in addition to the reliability and quality control problems with the missiles, they apparently have a fusing problem.

On 10 May, the Pentagon confirmed that Russia had depleted its missile inventory and that it was "running through their precision-guided missiles at a pretty fast clip” and was "running the lowest on cruise missiles, particularly air-launched cruise missiles,” but Moscow still had more than 50 percent of its prewar inventory. Since then, missile use has continued, but at much-reduced rates.

Inflated Expectations

For a long time, the Russian military has claimed that its nonstrategic ballistic and cruise missiles and strategic long-range cruise missiles have accuracies measured in a few meters. Former Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov (now head of Russia’s Space Agency), who handled defense procurement, stated that the Kh-101, Bastion, Bal, Kalibr, Iskander (hypersonic at longer ranges), and Kinzhal hypersonic missiles were high-precision missiles and that "high-precision munitions have the error probability of just a few meters. They can travel hundreds of kilometers and have next to zero CEP.” Even before the war, there was some evidence that this was not the case.

In 2017, a noted Russian military journalist pointed out in state media that the Kalibr naval cruise missile had an accuracy of 30 meters and the Kh-101 air-launched cruise missile had an "accuracy of five to 50 meters,” which is quite different than a "few meters” or near-zero CEP. While the variation in accuracy is not explained, 50 meters is not even close to near-precision accuracy. In January 2022, U.S. Army Chief of Staff General James McConville said that Russian hypersonic missiles were not a game changer because, "I have not seen them actually hit a target with that system.”1 U.S. Northern Command Commander General Glen VanHerck has said Russia has "challenges” regarding accuracy of its hypersonic missiles. He added that Russian missiles were still "on par” with U.S. missiles. This is apparently a reference to capabilities that Russian missiles have but U.S. missiles do not—supersonic and hypersonic speed, very long range, dual capability, and, in many cases, antiship capability (until recently when the United States began to introduce longer-range antiship missiles). These are important characteristics that don’t play much of a role in Russia’s war with Ukraine but which would be much more important in a war against NATO or against the United States and its Pacific allies.

In the most recent war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Armenia used the Russian-supplied Iskander-E. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan stated that 90 percent of the Iskander missiles "didn’t explode, or maybe 10 percent of them exploded,” although he later backed away from this statement. The problem was probably not mainly duds but rather accuracy. The Russian motive for attacking his claim is obvious. Russia wants to scare the West and sell Iskander missiles. While the Russian version of the Iskander is more accurate, it is likely that Russian claims about the Iskander-M’s accuracy are also exaggerated. Pashinyan’s initial statement may have reflected the poor accuracy of the Iskander-E, which is reported to have a CEP of 30 to 70 meters.

Noted Russian journalist Pavel Felgenhauer observed, "The Iskander as well as other Russian non-strategic missiles can be truly effective only with a nuclear warhead—apparently the way it is intended to primarily be used in any peer-to-peer conflict.” While Russian technical inferiority also plays a role, Mr. Felgenhauer is likely correct.

Because of shortages of modern missiles, in June, Russia began using older Kh-22 (NATO named: AS-4) missiles. The British Defense Ministry stated, "These 5.5 tonne missiles were primarily designed to destroy aircraft carriers using a nuclear warhead. When employed in a ground-attack role with a conventional warhead they are highly inaccurate and can therefore cause significant collateral damage and civilian casualties.”

Russia’s Dual-Use Threat

Assuming Russia does not use nuclear weapons against Ukraine (not a given), the poor performance of Russian missiles is good news. Presumably, it will fix the accuracy problems, but that will take time, as will rebuilding the inventory. This gives the United States more time to upgrade its forces for deterrence and potential conflict with Russia or China.

However, Russian missiles are not just conventional like U.S. cruise missiles, but rather dual-capable. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review report confirmed that Russia "is also building a large, diverse, and modern set of non-strategic systems that are dual-capable (may be armed with nuclear or conventional weapons).” Dave Johnson, a staff officer in the NATO International Staff Defense Policy and Planning Division, observed that in regard to Russian precision strike weapons systems "all . . . are dual-capable or have nuclear analogs.” The distinction between conventional missiles and dual-capable missiles is very important.

The nuclear versions presumably will suffer from the same reliability and quality control problems as their conventional versions have demonstrated in the war against Ukraine. However, the accuracy and fusing problems will probably have little or no effect on the nuclear versions. While higher accuracy is always better than lower accuracy, for most targets, strikes with nuclear weapons do not require precision and accuracy or even near precision and accuracy. This is largely true even with low-yield nuclear weapons. The yield difference between conventional and low-yield nuclear weapons is enormous, and at very low yields the prompt radiation effects of nuclear explosions are often more important than blast. Furthermore, the Russian fusing problem resulting in duds will not likely affect the nuclear versions because they are products of different design bureaus with different design criteria and fusing is also generally different. For example, the "fallout free” height of burst is something that applies only to nuclear weapons. Direct ground impact will often be avoided to limit collateral damage. It should be noted that the only U.S. nuclear-armed cruise missile, the AGM-86B, is 40 years old, pre-stealth, pre-precision/near-precision accuracy, and has seriously eroded reliability—and this will be the case for almost a decade to come.

Except for Russia’s Kh-101 strategic air-launched cruise missile, all the missiles mentioned by Deputy Prime Minister Borisov have a primary or secondary antiship role. In the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia seized most of the Ukrainian Navy. At the start of the 2022 war, Ukraine sank its only frigate to prevent Russia from seizing it. While the Russians used antiship missiles against land targets, they apparently did not use them for antiship attacks. However, because the missiles have terminal sensors for antiship use, the accuracy problems demonstrated in Russian land attacks probably would not apply against a ship target.

For a variety of reasons, the lessons the Russians learn from Ukraine may be very different from what the West learns. (Russian lessons from Syria, constantly mentioned, seem to ignore that Syria was a low-intensity conflict). As a result of their combat experience in Ukraine, some in the Russian military will likely argue for a further increase in nuclear capability and reliance. Indeed, increased emphasis on tactical nuclear weapons is being urged on Russian state television. Deputy Chief of the Russian National Security Council (and former President) Dmitri Medvedev has said that Russia would defend annexed Ukrainian territory (Donbas and Luhansk) with "strategic nuclear weapons and weapons based on new principles could be used for such protection.”

Putin has demonstrated a willingness to launch massively destructive attacks, lives in a fantasy world in which he is fighting NSDAPs, and is playing general much in the way Hitler did in World War II. If he remains in power or is replaced by someone like him, the free world has a serious threat on its hands.

As long as we're on the subject.

 

22 minutes ago, Mlodj said:

 

 

On 11/16/2022 at 8:24 AM, Abracadabra said:

What's the state of Ukraine's railway network this morning? Might be difficult to get supplies to the NATO occupiers of Kherson. 

Hmm...