6 ms·
What is the best defense against these bombs? Anything cost effective?
by melling 2y ago
What is the best defense against these bombs? Anything cost effective?
- gre 2y agoDiplomacy
- melling 2y agoPlease don’t invade us?
- protomolecule 2y ago[flagged]
- mopsi 2y agoNATO isn't a dough that expands on its own. Better ask why Russia has soured relations with all of its European neighbors to the extent that all of them are preparing for fighting off an invasion.
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoThis assumes that Ukraine can’t make its own alliances without asking permission from daddy Russia first. I wouldn’t expect my country to ask permission, would you?
- protomolecule 2y agoJust like Cuba could make its own alliance with the USSR in 1962. The US was going to start the WW3 over it[0]. More importantly, the Ukrainians were against NATO membership[1] when the US-backed president of the Ukraine, elected after the so called Orange Revolution, applied to join NATO[2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis [1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/127094/ukrainians-likely-support-move-away-nato.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/127094/ukrainians-likely-suppor... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Applying_for_Ukraine_to_join_the_NATO_Membership_Action_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- JonChesterfield 2y agoDon't give Russia your nukes in exchange for pieces of paper seems to be a diplomatic lesson worth learning.
- boffinAudio 2y ago[flagged]
- mopsi 2y agoNobody was doing that until Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Europe was unilaterally disarming itself. Armies like Bundeswehr saw a 5x-10x reduction in manpower, artillery, tanks and other weapons between the end of the Cold War and 2014. Europe hosted 5000 US tanks in 1980s. The last one left in 2013. Russia invaded Ukraine the next year.
- boffinAudio 2y ago[flagged]
- piva00 2y agoSo you are saying it's justified the current invasion of Ukraine by Russia?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mopsi 2y agoNothing to do with belief. The facts about post-Cold War European disarmament are public and well known. German army had 335 200 soldiers, 3826 tanks and 2136 IFVs in 1980. By 2015, the numbers were down to 61 312 soldiers, 225 tanks and 406 IFVs. Same story elsewhere in Europe too, but not in Russia. Russia has been modernizing their armed forces since early 2000s and is currently expanding them by forming two new armies that have a larger size than the ground forces of most European countries COMBINED. That's why the mood has completely changed in Europe. Russia is preparing for even larger war against Europe.
- boffinAudio 2y agoImagine if we spent a trillion dollars a year on diplomacy instead of murder and mayhem. A trillion dollars would go a long way to solving poverty around the world. We'd be loved instead of despised. Alas, the wrong folks are in charge, and they're not interested in diplomacy. No profit in it.
- nradov 2y agoDiplomacy is pointless in this situation. Russia will not negotiate in good faith, or voluntarily give up the territory they conquered. Violence is the only solution.
- pjc50 2y agohttps://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_danegeld.htm https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_danegeld.htm "once you have paid him the Dane-geld, You never get rid of the Dane": in the long term, or even the medium, bribing your enemies to not attack you does not work. The Danegeld was one such system from when the "Vikings" were invading northeast England round about the year 1000AD.
- boffinAudio 2y agos/Dane/Military Industrial Complex/g Equally applicable.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- twic 2y agoShoot down the planes before they drop them. Commentary on this recent trend usually attributes it to weak Ukrainian air defences, for example in this article: > Russia’s air force appears to have been a key player in turning the tide of the war in the Kremlin’s favour in recent months at a time when Ukraine’s air defences are at a low ebb. But also: > The Ukrainian analysts write: “Russia uses UMPC bombs primarily to hit its targets in frontline areas, minimising the possibility of its own aircraft being hit by Ukrainian air defences. In just one week, from 26 February to 3 March, Russia used more than 500 [guided aerial bombs with a mounted UMPC]”.
- NovemberWhiskey 2y agoRight; the effective engagement range of the UMPK system from high altitude/speed is enough to keep aircraft out of the range of medium/short range SAM system (SA-11/SA-8 types) and it seems clear that Ukraine doesn't have enough of the long-range system (SA-10 type) to provide sufficient coverage.
- amenhotep 2y agoThe whole point of glide bombs is that you can drop them further away from the air defence bubble - if you're not worried about air defence you just bring your planes in close and dump bombs directly on the enemies' heads! They're a reaction to a strong air defence, not a tactic enabled by a weak one. I do think you're right that the counter is to shoot down the planes dropping them, but my understanding is that the way you'd do that is with fighters, not GBAD. If Ukraine had stealth fighters with Meteors patrolling close to the frontlines then the bomb missions would be very dangerous. If they do not have any fighters at all then they are cakewalks, barring Patriot stuntwork. If they have an exhaustible supply of F-16s with AMRAAMs then it is difficult to predict.
- NovemberWhiskey 2y ago>They're a reaction to a strong air defence, not a tactic enabled by a weak one. The lack of an effective fighter component in the integrated air-defense system is a problem though, no?
- redwood 2y agoYes there are all kinds of capabilities that exist and that can be rapidly developed and refined to target these. The West would certainly be doing so if it were being attacked directly
- NovemberWhiskey 2y agoIf the West were being attacked, we'd be flying fighter sweeps over enemy territory to interdict the attackers before they were in range; this would be after conducting SEAD/DEAD attacks to suppress the SAM threat and/or attacking their airfields with stealthy stand-off munitions. We certainly have the missile technology to shoot these bombs down, if necessary, but there's no percentage in deploying expensive/limited missiles to do that if you can take down or deter the launch platforms.
- justin66 2y agoSurface to air missiles and jet fighters to down the aircraft dropping these things.