this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
139 points (99.3% liked)

Palestine

989 readers
58 users here now

A community for everything related to Palestine and the occupation currently underway by the occupying force known as Israel.

Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. Existence is resistance for Palestinians.

Please refer to Israel as Occupied Palestine, or occupied territories. The IDF is a fascist and ethnonationalist occupying force. Israelis are settlers. We understand however that the imperial narrative (which tries to legitimise Israel) is internalised in the imperial core and slip-ups are naturally expected.

We always take the sides of Palestine and Palestinians and are unapologetic about it. Israel is an occupying power whose "defence force"'s (note the contradiction) sole purpose for existing is to push Palestinians out so they can resettle their rightful land. If you have anything positive to say about Israel we do not care.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Chanting, "We don't care, we don't care, let the world war ignite"

Decades are going to happen soon.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

American strategic policy is to be able to simultaneously wage four full-blown continent spanning wars at once spread around the globe.

Bruh they nearly run out of artillery ammo on a single proxy war. Entire US military is geared towards bombing defenseless countries and siphoning that "ridiculous amount of funding" you said into pockets of war profiteers. US military is exactly the same costeffective as US healthcare.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

The US has over 700 bases worldwide. This is for rapid deployment of forces. Those bases are stocked. The issue of supplying Ukraine with artillery munitions isn't that we don't have the munitions. It's that we don't want to touch our stockpile and we never will as it's not to be used except in the case of all out war. Since we are not an howitzer based artillery dependant nation, and we are not directly at war with Russia we don't exactly have much of our logistics pointed to production of those munitions as howitzer based artillery is an antiquated tertiary weapon platform. So we gave away the excess supply we had and now industry is retooling to meet the new orders for artillery production.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

The issue of supplying Ukraine with artillery munitions isn’t that we don’t have the munitions. It’s that we don’t want to touch our stockpile and we never will as it’s not to be used except in the case of all out war.

And why do you think that is, genius? It's because America and NATO don't have the industrial capacity to replenish those shells in time.

Since we are not an howitzer based artillery dependant nation

Reality doesn't work like that, there's no such thing as an army that doesn't rely on artillery in a land war unless you can get away with having air superiority against a nation that doesn't have their own air force and air defen... do you see where I'm going with this?

howitzer based artillery is an antiquated tertiary weapon platform

lol you're a joke!

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I'm glad you mentioned that last point about air superiority. Could you do me a favor and remind me which country owns the first largest Air Force? The second largest Air Force, and the third largest Air Force. Oh right that's the USAF the USAAF and the USN.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I see that irony is not your forte. I'm trying to tell you that the US cannot get away with the "air superiority" tactics they did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc because countries like Russia and China have a lot of air defenses and their own air forces. Do you get it now?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Replying as a second comment. Just so you see this, but this was intended as an edit. Russia can't defend its own airspace from drone attacks based out of Ukraine. You realize this right? Not saturation attacks, just straight up commercial grade civilian drones 15 to 20 of them launched at a time. Traveling several hundred miles into Russian airspace and detonating on targets... They cannot detect them, let alone defend from them. I would expect China and India to have much better capabilities however.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

This is an idiotic argument. Ukraine has one third of all western AD in Europe and it is still unable to fully defend against Russian drones and missiles. Smaller, lower flying targets are harder to detect and hit than big manned jets. They are also more expendable so you can afford to use them more recklessly. Drones are regularly shot down in great numbers or brought down by EW, if this happened to manned aircraft it would be a disaster. If the US tried using its jets against any country with halfway decent AD its pilots who took years and billions of dollars to train would start dying like flies, not to mention aircraft being destroyed that is thousands of times more expensive than a drone, and there would be the mother of all scandals back home. The US has no capacity to absorb real losses, it's why they only pick on the most defenseless countries and non-state actors.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Do you understand that the reason that the US is having its proxy war in Ukraine is that we get to test all of our equipment for free? So far we are not impressed by the fact that Russia's top of the line gear is being smacked down by our shit from 1990. While our air defense systems are still operational and dishing out punishment.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Do you understand that the reason that the US is having its proxy war in Ukraine is that...

The containment strategy against Russia is failed and they decided to fight back, yes

we get to test all of our equipment for free

I wouldn't call throwing EU economies into recession and disarming NATO "free" lol

So far we are not impressed by the fact that Russia’s top of the line gear is being smacked down by our shit from 1990.

You live in fantasy land, Ukraine is getting pounded by Russia, abandoned by America and you're still high off the MSM farts with stories of pensioners downing jets with rifles and Russian generals dying every week

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Disarming NATO lol

NATO countries donating outdated equipment and using it as an excuse to buy new toys. Yes totally disarmed.

It's cost the US 3%of it's Military budget to have Russian capabilities utterly crippled. And this conflict has encouraged inter-european cooperation and strengthened NATO logistics for minimal year-over-year cost increase. However, as Russia is finding out, Europe does not need Russian energy.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

NATO countries donating outdated equipment and using it as an excuse to buy new toys. Yes totally disarmed.

Good luck using the "new toys" without the munitions for them!

It’s cost the US 3%of it’s Military budget to have Russian capabilities utterly crippled.

According to top US generals they're actually stronger than before the war started, cope harder

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-army-bigger-than-start-ukraine-war-us-general-2023-4

However, as Russia is finding out, Europe does not need Russian energy.

Europe is buying Russian gas and oil at a markup from third parties like India to evade sanctions, America is literally buying DIRECTLY from Russia, both at above the "market cap" they tried to set lol

America also pays billions for nuclear energy from Russia: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/14/climate/enriched-uranium-nuclear-russia-ohio.html

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

100% of the Russian armed forces is either dead or wounded? You can't seriously believe these insane propaganda numbers LMFAO

Who's fighting against the Ukrainian army? Ghosts? Zombies? Fucking clown.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Me thinks that you don't understand logistics or math. If Russia started the invasion with 360,000 troops and more than $360,000 troops have been wounded then that would be a 100% casualty rate. Fortunately for Russia. Unfortunately, for Russians, there are a lot of men in Russia and the Russian leaders like to use meat grinder tactics.

From what are analysts are able to scratch up roughly 80% of the combatants that have seen action have been wounded thus far. Replacements have been regularly cycled in.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Hey dipshit, did you read the link you posted? That's the number I'm referencing. It claims that 1.107.480 out of 900.000 troops have been wounded, can you figure out how we know this is obvious bullshit? Hint: one of the numbers is a bit higher than the other.

Unfortunately, for Russians, there are a lot of men in Russia and the Russian leaders like to use meat grinder tactics.

But according to your link they've already run out of men. Also, the Russian ground forces are only about ~550.000 troops, you expect me to believe that an additional ~557.480 from the navy and air force were also injured? In a land war? IN A NAVY OF ~160.000 AND AN AIR FORCE OF ~165.000? THESE NUMBERS ARE LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

They're clearly trying to evoke the "muh asiatic hordes" idea and imply that they're conscripting ridiculous amounts of people because they've already lost all their actual soldiers

It's especially ludicrous for them to say that, it's such obvious blatant projection when there's overwhelming evidence that Ukraine is the one doing that, even the mainstream media is admitting it these days

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

an antiquated tertiary weapon platform

XD this is why they have no ammo because for them the primary weapon are political bribes and drones which are good again weddings, and other tools of terror and "short victorious wars".

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Ah yes, because when we invent a slap chop missile to minimize collateral damage, that's a bad thing. Obviously it's less efficient. Obviously it cost 200 times as much as an artillery shell. Clearly the logistically superior tactic is to fire a 120 mm artillery shell into a civilian crowded area and obliterate the entire wedding instead of just one car. Oh right, that's what you don't like...

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Obviously it’s less efficient. Obviously it cost 200 times as much as an artillery shell.

And that's why it's prioritized over artillery shell production, this way the MIC gets to launder more money. You're almost self-aware.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It's almost like I realize that I live in a for-profit driven country. But again, at the same time is almost like our specialized hyper expensive tools actually get the job done versus praying that the artillery round connects with the right target over the horizon.

If it cost 200 times more for a single missile but you need to fire 200 artillery shells to accomplish the same result. Well, what's cheaper?. The missile can be fired by one dude. Several thousand miles away sitting on his ass in a cargo container. The towed artillery will require minimum five guns and 10 men per gun.

You need to understand we live in a disposable razor society. We don't care about straight razor economics.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

If it cost 200 times more for a single missile but you need to fire 200 artillery shells to accomplish the same result. Well, what’s cheaper?

Shells are way easier to produce than guided missiles, this comparison is asinine. Why are you comparing just the "price" of the two options? Have you also considered that artillery is not just for destroying things but also to deny control of an area or send support fire to a position? Good luck doing that with one fucking missile, I'll take the 200 shells.

Liberals shouldn't speak ~~about things they don't know~~ at all, they shouldn't speak ever

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I love how you think I'm a liberal. I'm not a conservative either. If field artillery was as useful as you claim, then Russia wouldn't be doing so poorly. There is a reason that we don't use carpet bombing anymore and moved to precision guided munitions.

It wasn't the price. It was the effectivity rate.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

If field artillery was as useful as you claim, then Russia wouldn’t be doing so poorly.

Russia is only doing poorly in your cope fantasies, Russia won the war.

The vast majority of casualties in this war (just like in WW1) have been due to artillery.

There is a reason that we don’t use carpet bombing anymore

But you literally do.

moved to precision guided munitions

This never happened, it's just propaganda to pretend that America's wars are "more humane".

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

Bruh US military do doubletap to murder rescuers and actively participates in nearly every genocide sinde WW2.