4 ms·

However, despite the apparent lack of technical capability, ‘dumb-iron’ has inflicted an horrendous amount of damage and the potential to wreak significantly mo

by nelox 5y ago

However, despite the apparent lack of technical capability, ‘dumb-iron’ has inflicted an horrendous amount of damage and the potential to wreak significantly more carnage in Ukraine.

Spooky23 5y ago
It has, but ultimately it’s just expending surplus equipment built up by the Soviet Union. It’s not a sustainable or even sensible approach. Honestly, the Russians would be better off with 1950 Chinese style mass conscripted infantry formations with modern weapons, atgm, and manpads.
TimTheTinker 5y ago
A blunt instrument wielded by a madman. It may "get the job done", but only if the job doesn't require a conscience.
- XorNot 5y ago
  Well, also if the goal is the carnage itself and nothing else. The Kremlin is very clearly still operating under the idea that violent repression will lead to a compliant, productive population - which wasn't true at any point in USSR history even.
  - TimTheTinker 5y ago
    The Kremlin's only real goal is power. Other goals are merely means to that end. Same goes for Beijing and North Korea.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
jholman 5y ago
There has never been any doubt that 20th century weapons are sufficient to do horrendous damage to civilian targets. WWII shows plenty of examples, many of them in Russia. Saying that the modern Russian army is at least as capable as the WWII Russian army... I mean, it's not wrong, it's just not interesting.
kamaal 5y ago
The day the invasion started, it was like early India morning it was the scariest morning I've had in a while. The sheer rate at which they fired missiles(Cruise? Iskandr?) and the rate at which they were able to cripple anything in sight was scary. If this is what a reduced capability armed forces can do. I shudder to imagine what a real power can do, and sheer loss of human life and value that humans built would be(is already) heart wrenching.
- jmnicolas 5y ago
  Their missile strikes seemed very effective, it's the rest of their army that seem inefficient. More efficiency would mean they would be further in the control of the country and would have sustained less losses. It doesn't mean there would be more civilian deaths, on the contrary I think.

by nelox 5y ago

However, despite the apparent lack of technical capability, ‘dumb-iron’ has inflicted an horrendous amount of damage and the potential to wreak significantly more carnage in Ukraine.

Spooky23 5y ago

It has, but ultimately it’s just expending surplus equipment built up by the Soviet Union. It’s not a sustainable or even sensible approach. Honestly, the Russians would be better off with 1950 Chinese style mass conscripted infantry formations with modern weapons, atgm, and manpads.

TimTheTinker 5y ago

A blunt instrument wielded by a madman. It may "get the job done", but only if the job doesn't require a conscience.

XorNot 5y ago
Well, also if the goal is the carnage itself and nothing else. The Kremlin is very clearly still operating under the idea that violent repression will lead to a compliant, productive population - which wasn't true at any point in USSR history even.
- TimTheTinker 5y ago
  The Kremlin's only real goal is power. Other goals are merely means to that end. Same goes for Beijing and North Korea.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

jholman 5y ago

There has never been any doubt that 20th century weapons are sufficient to do horrendous damage to civilian targets. WWII shows plenty of examples, many of them in Russia. Saying that the modern Russian army is at least as capable as the WWII Russian army... I mean, it's not wrong, it's just not interesting.

kamaal 5y ago

The day the invasion started, it was like early India morning it was the scariest morning I've had in a while. The sheer rate at which they fired missiles(Cruise? Iskandr?) and the rate at which they were able to cripple anything in sight was scary. If this is what a reduced capability armed forces can do. I shudder to imagine what a real power can do, and sheer loss of human life and value that humans built would be(is already) heart wrenching.

jmnicolas 5y ago
Their missile strikes seemed very effective, it's the rest of their army that seem inefficient. More efficiency would mean they would be further in the control of the country and would have sustained less losses. It doesn't mean there would be more civilian deaths, on the contrary I think.