Why 200? Five missiles each such strange numbers. How would 1,000 missiles end a war that has fire more than that? How do you get Trump to give Ukraine anything?
It’s crazy to me how low stockpiles are for the usa and other nato militaries.
Russia got its high tech tank army annihilated, but it is still blasting 10,000 artillery shells at Ukraine every day.
This war has shown the strength and weakness of high tech militaries. Devastatingly powerful, unmanageably expensive to maintain.
Not to mention that the USA doesn’t have the production power to supply Ukraine AND keep up with another active conflict - we’ll be low on weapons in weeks.
The USA has to win the war within a month or they lose. They will use up all available weapons and cannot produce them at anywhere near the rate that china and Russia can.
Let’s say a war breaks out between nato and Russia/china. If the USA can wipe out EVERYTHING in a few opening salvos, MAYBE they can win.
Total nonsense that war can’t happen without the use of nukes.
Chinas ability to project power isn’t there yet - but the us’s is weakening. The USA, simply put, could not win against china. Not over there, not over here
CrackWhoresAndCheese
Why 200? Five missiles each such strange numbers. How would 1,000 missiles end a war that has fire more than that? How do you get Trump to give Ukraine anything?
CrackWhoresAndCheese
Putin does not care about the life of his people.
icanseethefnords
Neither does trump :(
CrackWhoresAndCheese
Yup.
eion85
For reference: the US stockpile of Tomahawk Missiles is around 4,000
eion85
And they have a range of about 1000 miles. Moscow is about 500 miles from Kyiv.
yamamasyamaha
It’s crazy to me how low stockpiles are for the usa and other nato militaries.
Russia got its high tech tank army annihilated, but it is still blasting 10,000 artillery shells at Ukraine every day.
This war has shown the strength and weakness of high tech militaries. Devastatingly powerful, unmanageably expensive to maintain.
Not to mention that the USA doesn’t have the production power to supply Ukraine AND keep up with another active conflict - we’ll be low on weapons in weeks.
yamamasyamaha
Expensive to SUSTAIN - and maintain, but sustain was the word I wanted
eion85
You can't directly compare complicated cruise missiles with artillery shells.
yamamasyamaha
And I didn’t
yamamasyamaha
The USA has to win the war within a month or they lose. They will use up all available weapons and cannot produce them at anywhere near the rate that china and Russia can.
Let’s say a war breaks out between nato and Russia/china. If the USA can wipe out EVERYTHING in a few opening salvos, MAYBE they can win.
eion85
If a hot, global war breaks out between NATO and Russia and/or China then nuclear weapons will be used and then it's over in a day one way or another.
Russia and China also don't have the kind of global projection the US does. They can't engage in a war anywhere they want. They're regional powers.
yamamasyamaha
Total nonsense that war can’t happen without the use of nukes.
Chinas ability to project power isn’t there yet - but the us’s is weakening. The USA, simply put, could not win against china. Not over there, not over here