as we all await the costs of escalating violence, this is a biography-type report on Zelensky:
3 weeks ago / “Gravitas Plus: The story of Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky” / 9min
for reference:
Palki Sharma Upadhyay
Palki Sharma Upadhyay is Journalist, News Anchor and an editor at 'World Is One News' (WION). She hosts India's only international news and views prime time show called 'Gravitas'. It was after an eleven-year career in journalism with CNN-IBN she moved to WION.
Can someone explain why a new ICBM is significant? ICBMs have been deployed by both countries since the 1950s and all ICBMs are "hypersonic"
We don't have the ability to shoot down Russia's current stable of older ICBMs so this isn't really anything new, just a modernization of existing missiles. The US is also constantly upgrading it's ICBMs and nuclear warheads. That is nothing new either. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mi ... rce-06059/
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
(my understanding is) in this topic, most are posting “news notes they notice,” without judging significance or lack thereof.
it’s understood there is more unknown than known, so, “fwiw.”
Karstan’s posts are helpful.
nothing will be settled one way or another regarding Ukraine on this forum.
it’s open discussion of bystanders as things unfold.
- - - - - - -
a friend told me she knows a young enlisted married man with a first+new baby who was sent to Poland.
(i’ve read) U.S. troops are in Poland to train Ukrainian soldiers.
Can someone explain why a new ICBM is significant? ICBMs have been deployed by both countries since the 1950s and all ICBMs are "hypersonic"
We don't have the ability to shoot down Russia's current stable of older ICBMs so this isn't really anything new, just a modernization of existing missiles. The US is also constantly upgrading it's ICBMs and nuclear warheads. That is nothing new either. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mi ... rce-06059/
Not a good sign for US hegemony that they're playing catchup.
Karstan78 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 11:59 am
Current reports are stating that Russia has claimed to have successfully tested their Sarmat intercontinental missile.
temporal1 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 6:21 pm
well, Karstan, you quieted this topic.
Can someone explain why a new ICBM is significant? ICBMs have been deployed by both countries since the 1950s and all ICBMs are "hypersonic"
We don't have the ability to shoot down Russia's current stable of older ICBMs so this isn't really anything new, just a modernization of existing missiles. The US is also constantly upgrading it's ICBMs and nuclear warheads. That is nothing new either. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mi ... rce-06059/
Not a good sign for US hegemony that they're playing catchup.
What are you talking about? The US is constantly upgrading and modernizing its military equipment and technology. That is what a lot the obscene military spending in this country goes to. The Pentagon just doesn't bother to issue splashy international news releases every time they test something. That is what countries with inferiority complexes like Iran, North Korea, and Russia apparently do.
I'm not a proponent for this sort of lavish military spending. I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on peaceful development. I'd rather live in a world where this sort of machinery and technology is unnecessary. But military spending does have consequences.
Can you cite a single example of any advanced technological weaponry in which the Russians are superior to the US or NATO?
And the US also doesn't try to match Russia 1 for 1 in terms of weapons systems. Russia is a continental power. The Russians have never fought a major war in which they didn't maintain their supply lines with railroads. So they tend to build lots of big heavy stuff to be hauled around by trains. The US is a naval and air power and every war the US has fought since the Civil War has had an amphibious element. Every war the US has fought since then has involved naval and air transport for every soldier and piece of equipment. So the US designs its equipment to be airlifted or shipped by sea and landed on beaches. The US hasn't used railroads for war since the Civil War. That influences both the design and types of equipment that you equip your military with and how you structure your forces.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote: ↑Sun Apr 24, 2022 12:41 pm
What are you talking about? The US is constantly upgrading and modernizing its military equipment and technology. That is what a lot the obscene military spending in this country goes to. The Pentagon just doesn't bother to issue splashy international news releases every time they test something. That is what countries with inferiority complexes like Iran, North Korea, and Russia apparently do.
I'm not a proponent for this sort of lavish military spending. I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on peaceful development. I'd rather live in a world where this sort of machinery and technology is unnecessary. But military spending does have consequences.
Can you cite a single example of any advanced technological weaponry in which the Russians are superior to the US or NATO?
And the US also doesn't try to match Russia 1 for 1 in terms of weapons systems. Russia is a continental power. The Russians have never fought a major war in which they didn't maintain their supply lines with railroads. So they tend to build lots of big heavy stuff to be hauled around by trains. The US is a naval and air power and every war the US has fought since the Civil War has had an amphibious element. Every war the US has fought since then has involved naval and air transport for every soldier and piece of equipment. So the US designs its equipment to be airlifted or shipped by sea and landed on beaches. The US hasn't used railroads for war since the Civil War. That influences both the design and types of equipment that you equip your military with and how you structure your forces.
You make a lot of compelling arguments. The exact same that were made from within the Ottoman empire before falling in the Italo-Turkish and Balkan wars.
For someone who seems to know so much history, you sure don't seem to think about how past mistakes apply to our present time.
Ken wrote: ↑Sun Apr 24, 2022 12:41 pm
What are you talking about? The US is constantly upgrading and modernizing its military equipment and technology. That is what a lot the obscene military spending in this country goes to. The Pentagon just doesn't bother to issue splashy international news releases every time they test something. That is what countries with inferiority complexes like Iran, North Korea, and Russia apparently do.
I'm not a proponent for this sort of lavish military spending. I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on peaceful development. I'd rather live in a world where this sort of machinery and technology is unnecessary. But military spending does have consequences.
Can you cite a single example of any advanced technological weaponry in which the Russians are superior to the US or NATO?
And the US also doesn't try to match Russia 1 for 1 in terms of weapons systems. Russia is a continental power. The Russians have never fought a major war in which they didn't maintain their supply lines with railroads. So they tend to build lots of big heavy stuff to be hauled around by trains. The US is a naval and air power and every war the US has fought since the Civil War has had an amphibious element. Every war the US has fought since then has involved naval and air transport for every soldier and piece of equipment. So the US designs its equipment to be airlifted or shipped by sea and landed on beaches. The US hasn't used railroads for war since the Civil War. That influences both the design and types of equipment that you equip your military with and how you structure your forces.
You make a lot of compelling arguments. The exact same that were made from within the Ottoman empire before falling in the Italo-Turkish and Balkan wars.
For someone who seems to know so much history, you sure don't seem to think about how past mistakes apply to our present time.
Sure, let's talk about history. When was the last time a military power successfully waged a war of territorial expansion against a neighboring foreign nation? Which is what Russia is doing right now. You probably have to go back to the Franco-Prussian War in which Germany successfully annexed Alsace–Lorraine, although they only managed to keep it for 48 years. Or maybe 1939 when the USSR annexed Karelia during the Winter War with Finland at the cost of 350,000 casualties. And that was when the USSR was twice the size of modern Russia and Finland was 1/10th the size of modern Ukraine. On the other hand, history is littered with examples of countries who have tried to do so and failed.
So is history actually on the side of Russia or Ukraine in this conflict?
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote: ↑Sun Apr 24, 2022 2:06 pm
Sure, let's talk about history. When was the last time a military power successfully waged a war of territorial expansion against a neighboring foreign nation? Which is what Russia is doing right now. You probably have to go back to the Franco-Prussian War in which Germany successfully annexed Alsace–Lorraine, although they only managed to keep it for 48 years. Or maybe 1939 when the USSR annexed Karelia during the Winter War with Finland at the cost of 350,000 casualties. And that was when the USSR was twice the size of modern Russia and Finland was 1/10th the size of modern Ukraine. On the other hand, history is littered with examples of countries who have tried to do so and failed.
So is history actually on the side of Russia or Ukraine in this conflict?
Is Ukraine right around the corner from warding off Russia? We've been told this for a few months now, but it seems like the largest offensive to date is about to take place.
