3 ms·

If they can't win the not-war they're fighting against Russia, what is their huge military stockpile supposed to do? If it isn't useful here, they can't use it.

by roenxi 3y ago

pjc50 3y ago
The US military stockpile is staffed by Americans, not Ukranians, and there's no political will to transfer some of the really expensive stuff which requires extensive training like F35s. The transfers of Patriot anti-missile batteries, HIMARS, Bradley vehicles etc have been extremely effective in pushing back the Russian line of control from the initial invasion, but now it's a nasty question of assaulting well defended positions without air superiority. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040 • 39 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS); • 12 National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS); 1 Patriot air defense battery; other air defense systems; and 21 air surveillance radars; • 31 Abrams tanks, 45 T-72B tanks and 186 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles; • 300 M113 and 189 Stryker Armored Personnel Carriers; • 2,000+ Stinger anti-aircraft missiles; • 10,000+ Javelin and 90,000+ other anti-armor systems; • Phoenix Ghost, Switchblade, and other UAS; • 198 155 mm and 72 105 mm Howitzers and artillery; • 227 mortar systems; • Remote Anti-Armor Mine (RAAM) Systems; • 9,000+ Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire- Guided (TOW) missiles; • High-speed anti-radiation missiles (HARMs) and laser- guided rocket systems; • 35,000+ grenade launchers and small arms; • communications, radar, and intelligence equipment; and • training, maintenance, and sustainment. (What's NOT on that list? Aircraft. What's the US doctrine way of winning a war, such as OIF? Air power.)
- uzbit 3y ago
  Wow, nice find with the evidence right there! Comments like this is why I read HN. The US may not be fighting with troops, but definitely fighting proxy with it's m.i.c. Edit: Do you think no aircraft because they'd have to use US trained pilots?
- roenxi 3y ago
  Don't go crazy internet list person on me; arguing with you is part of the fun of HN. Now I've got 2 persapectives here. There is "largest weapons cache and standing military in the history of humanity" from pyvpx and there is this rather smaller list from yourself. I'm inclined to go with your list - I don't think the US is in a position to deploy the largest weapons cache in the history of humanity. The evidence we have is that the US is broke and only capable of bullying people with this rather less impressive list of ad-hoc assembled gear with no air support. Which is not nothing, but has observably failed to turn back the Russians. They don't have the industrial or financial foundations to project do-what-I-say strength overseas any more against larger economies like Russia. It is pretty obvious they don't have that capability, or they'd have used it.

If they can't win the not-war they're fighting against Russia, what is their huge military stockpile supposed to do? If it isn't useful here, they can't use it.

by roenxi 3y ago

If they can't win the not-war they're fighting against Russia, what is their huge military stockpile supposed to do? If it isn't useful here, they can't use it.

pjc50 3y ago

The US military stockpile is staffed by Americans, not Ukranians, and there's no political will to transfer some of the really expensive stuff which requires extensive training like F35s. The transfers of Patriot anti-missile batteries, HIMARS, Bradley vehicles etc have been extremely effective in pushing back the Russian line of control from the initial invasion, but now it's a nasty question of assaulting well defended positions without air superiority. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040 • 39 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS); • 12 National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems (NASAMS); 1 Patriot air defense battery; other air defense systems; and 21 air surveillance radars; • 31 Abrams tanks, 45 T-72B tanks and 186 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles; • 300 M113 and 189 Stryker Armored Personnel Carriers; • 2,000+ Stinger anti-aircraft missiles; • 10,000+ Javelin and 90,000+ other anti-armor systems; • Phoenix Ghost, Switchblade, and other UAS; • 198 155 mm and 72 105 mm Howitzers and artillery; • 227 mortar systems; • Remote Anti-Armor Mine (RAAM) Systems; • 9,000+ Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire- Guided (TOW) missiles; • High-speed anti-radiation missiles (HARMs) and laser- guided rocket systems; • 35,000+ grenade launchers and small arms; • communications, radar, and intelligence equipment; and • training, maintenance, and sustainment. (What's NOT on that list? Aircraft. What's the US doctrine way of winning a war, such as OIF? Air power.)

uzbit 3y ago
Wow, nice find with the evidence right there! Comments like this is why I read HN. The US may not be fighting with troops, but definitely fighting proxy with it's m.i.c. Edit: Do you think no aircraft because they'd have to use US trained pilots?
roenxi 3y ago
Don't go crazy internet list person on me; arguing with you is part of the fun of HN. Now I've got 2 persapectives here. There is "largest weapons cache and standing military in the history of humanity" from pyvpx and there is this rather smaller list from yourself. I'm inclined to go with your list - I don't think the US is in a position to deploy the largest weapons cache in the history of humanity. The evidence we have is that the US is broke and only capable of bullying people with this rather less impressive list of ad-hoc assembled gear with no air support. Which is not nothing, but has observably failed to turn back the Russians. They don't have the industrial or financial foundations to project do-what-I-say strength overseas any more against larger economies like Russia. It is pretty obvious they don't have that capability, or they'd have used it.