(08-04-2025 12:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-04-2025 12:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-04-2025 08:56 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If Trump will not commit more support to Ukraine because of fear of WW3, then he sure as hell isn’t going to launch a 1st nuclear strike. This is TV drama for the US audience but it’s meaningless otherwise. If he wanted to appropriately respond and stand up to Putin, he would substantially increase US support in Ukraine. He’d reassert US leadership in NATO and ease their concerns that we’ve abandoned them.

No, this kabuki theatre reminds me of the sub battle scene from Hunt for Red October when Russian Captain Ramius is giving the appearance of its the Red October’s destruction, while he’s actually turning the sub over to the US.

I'd say Miko33 is closer to the target than you are here. Trump called Putin's nuclear bluff (it was always a bluff by the way).

I would suggest there are ways to vastly increase the Ukrainian defense abilities over what Biden was doing without actually engaging in the kind of escalation that providing new more modern American weapons might cause. Simply providing MORE of what is currently working is the best way to go in my opinion. Trump should immediately call for tripling the US production of artillery shells and anti-aircraft missiles (we need to do that regardless). That would allow us to agree to sell Ukraine a million artillery shells a year while selling them additional air defense missiles and systems. That would make a HUGE difference on the battlefield for the Ukrainian defense. The tripling of production would also allow us to do these things while actually still adding to our stockpiles (and providing an employment boost by the way).

The other thing I would do if I were Trump is find out where the bottle necks are for the Ukrainian production of their own domestic long range Neptune cruise missile. I would then make sure that whatever components are slowing down the production could be manufactured at scale for them in the west. If the Ukrainians could get to domestically producing 100+ of those Neptunes a month---with most of them being utilized on Russian oil refineries and key defense industries----I suspect Putin would quickly become FAR more interested in peace talks (especially if the increased artillery availability was causing the front to be even more frozen despite continued meat wave attacks).

One thing this war has brought out is how inadequate our defense manufacturing has become. We are running low on stocks sending only some things to Ukraine in a war in a relatively small theatre with armies of 300k-500k men fighting it out. There were battles with over a million men on each side in WWII.

Yup. Even the simulated war games in the Pacific theater where long distance strikes are the name of the game suggest we'd run out of stocks of key missiles within weeks---not months. Even three times the current production may be inadequate to quickly build the kind of stockpiles we really need to have. We may need to increase production closer to 10 fold to quickly build the stocks to the proper level and to insure we have adequate production facilities to continue to pump about enough ammo to sustain the kind of operational tempo we would need to fight that kind of war against an enemy like China---an opponent with similar or even superior industrial production capabilities.

(08-05-2025 12:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-04-2025 12:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-04-2025 12:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-04-2025 08:56 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If Trump will not commit more support to Ukraine because of fear of WW3, then he sure as hell isn’t going to launch a 1st nuclear strike. This is TV drama for the US audience but it’s meaningless otherwise. If he wanted to appropriately respond and stand up to Putin, he would substantially increase US support in Ukraine. He’d reassert US leadership in NATO and ease their concerns that we’ve abandoned them.

No, this kabuki theatre reminds me of the sub battle scene from Hunt for Red October when Russian Captain Ramius is giving the appearance of its the Red October’s destruction, while he’s actually turning the sub over to the US.

I'd say Miko33 is closer to the target than you are here. Trump called Putin's nuclear bluff (it was always a bluff by the way).

I would suggest there are ways to vastly increase the Ukrainian defense abilities over what Biden was doing without actually engaging in the kind of escalation that providing new more modern American weapons might cause. Simply providing MORE of what is currently working is the best way to go in my opinion. Trump should immediately call for tripling the US production of artillery shells and anti-aircraft missiles (we need to do that regardless). That would allow us to agree to sell Ukraine a million artillery shells a year while selling them additional air defense missiles and systems. That would make a HUGE difference on the battlefield for the Ukrainian defense. The tripling of production would also allow us to do these things while actually still adding to our stockpiles (and providing an employment boost by the way).

The other thing I would do if I were Trump is find out where the bottle necks are for the Ukrainian production of their own domestic long range Neptune cruise missile. I would then make sure that whatever components are slowing down the production could be manufactured at scale for them in the west. If the Ukrainians could get to domestically producing 100+ of those Neptunes a month---with most of them being utilized on Russian oil refineries and key defense industries----I suspect Putin would quickly become FAR more interested in peace talks (especially if the increased artillery availability was causing the front to be even more frozen despite continued meat wave attacks).

One thing this war has brought out is how inadequate our defense manufacturing has become. We are running low on stocks sending only some things to Ukraine in a war in a relatively small theatre with armies of 300k-500k men fighting it out. There were battles with over a million men on each side in WWII.

Yup. Even the simulated war games in the Pacific theater where long distance strikes are the name of the game suggest we'd run out of stocks of key missiles within weeks---not months. Even three times the current production may be inadequate to quickly build the kind of stockpiles we really need to have. We may need to increase production closer to 10 fold to quickly build the stocks to the proper level and to insure we have adequate production facilities to continue to pump about enough ammo to sustain the kind of operational tempo we would need to fight that kind of war against an enemy like China---an opponent with similar or even superior industrial production capabilities.

Send the Ukraine another 100 billion. That will fix it

(08-05-2025 10:39 AM)shere khan Wrote:  Days.

I think it’s like 1300 days now and the Ukrainians still haven’t run out of cards to play.

(08-05-2025 12:04 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 12:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-04-2025 12:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-04-2025 12:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-04-2025 08:56 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If Trump will not commit more support to Ukraine because of fear of WW3, then he sure as hell isn’t going to launch a 1st nuclear strike. This is TV drama for the US audience but it’s meaningless otherwise. If he wanted to appropriately respond and stand up to Putin, he would substantially increase US support in Ukraine. He’d reassert US leadership in NATO and ease their concerns that we’ve abandoned them.

No, this kabuki theatre reminds me of the sub battle scene from Hunt for Red October when Russian Captain Ramius is giving the appearance of its the Red October’s destruction, while he’s actually turning the sub over to the US.

I'd say Miko33 is closer to the target than you are here. Trump called Putin's nuclear bluff (it was always a bluff by the way).

I would suggest there are ways to vastly increase the Ukrainian defense abilities over what Biden was doing without actually engaging in the kind of escalation that providing new more modern American weapons might cause. Simply providing MORE of what is currently working is the best way to go in my opinion. Trump should immediately call for tripling the US production of artillery shells and anti-aircraft missiles (we need to do that regardless). That would allow us to agree to sell Ukraine a million artillery shells a year while selling them additional air defense missiles and systems. That would make a HUGE difference on the battlefield for the Ukrainian defense. The tripling of production would also allow us to do these things while actually still adding to our stockpiles (and providing an employment boost by the way).

The other thing I would do if I were Trump is find out where the bottle necks are for the Ukrainian production of their own domestic long range Neptune cruise missile. I would then make sure that whatever components are slowing down the production could be manufactured at scale for them in the west. If the Ukrainians could get to domestically producing 100+ of those Neptunes a month---with most of them being utilized on Russian oil refineries and key defense industries----I suspect Putin would quickly become FAR more interested in peace talks (especially if the increased artillery availability was causing the front to be even more frozen despite continued meat wave attacks).

One thing this war has brought out is how inadequate our defense manufacturing has become. We are running low on stocks sending only some things to Ukraine in a war in a relatively small theatre with armies of 300k-500k men fighting it out. There were battles with over a million men on each side in WWII.

Yup. Even the simulated war games in the Pacific theater where long distance strikes are the name of the game suggest we'd run out of stocks of key missiles within weeks---not months. Even three times the current production may be inadequate to quickly build the kind of stockpiles we really need to have. We may need to increase production closer to 10 fold to quickly build the stocks to the proper level and to insure we have adequate production facilities to continue to pump about enough ammo to sustain the kind of operational tempo we would need to fight that kind of war against an enemy like China---an opponent with similar or even superior industrial production capabilities.

Send the Ukraine another 100 billion. That will fix it

Shere Karen at his best.

(08-05-2025 12:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-04-2025 12:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-04-2025 12:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-04-2025 08:56 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If Trump will not commit more support to Ukraine because of fear of WW3, then he sure as hell isn’t going to launch a 1st nuclear strike. This is TV drama for the US audience but it’s meaningless otherwise. If he wanted to appropriately respond and stand up to Putin, he would substantially increase US support in Ukraine. He’d reassert US leadership in NATO and ease their concerns that we’ve abandoned them.

No, this kabuki theatre reminds me of the sub battle scene from Hunt for Red October when Russian Captain Ramius is giving the appearance of its the Red October’s destruction, while he’s actually turning the sub over to the US.

I'd say Miko33 is closer to the target than you are here. Trump called Putin's nuclear bluff (it was always a bluff by the way).

I would suggest there are ways to vastly increase the Ukrainian defense abilities over what Biden was doing without actually engaging in the kind of escalation that providing new more modern American weapons might cause. Simply providing MORE of what is currently working is the best way to go in my opinion. Trump should immediately call for tripling the US production of artillery shells and anti-aircraft missiles (we need to do that regardless). That would allow us to agree to sell Ukraine a million artillery shells a year while selling them additional air defense missiles and systems. That would make a HUGE difference on the battlefield for the Ukrainian defense. The tripling of production would also allow us to do these things while actually still adding to our stockpiles (and providing an employment boost by the way).

The other thing I would do if I were Trump is find out where the bottle necks are for the Ukrainian production of their own domestic long range Neptune cruise missile. I would then make sure that whatever components are slowing down the production could be manufactured at scale for them in the west. If the Ukrainians could get to domestically producing 100+ of those Neptunes a month---with most of them being utilized on Russian oil refineries and key defense industries----I suspect Putin would quickly become FAR more interested in peace talks (especially if the increased artillery availability was causing the front to be even more frozen despite continued meat wave attacks).

One thing this war has brought out is how inadequate our defense manufacturing has become. We are running low on stocks sending only some things to Ukraine in a war in a relatively small theatre with armies of 300k-500k men fighting it out. There were battles with over a million men on each side in WWII.

Yup. Even the simulated war games in the Pacific theater where long distance strikes are the name of the game suggest we'd run out of stocks of key missiles within weeks---not months. Even three times the current production may be inadequate to quickly build the kind of stockpiles we really need to have. We may need to increase production closer to 10 fold to quickly build the stocks to the proper level and to insure we have adequate production facilities to continue to pump about enough ammo to sustain the kind of operational tempo we would need to fight that kind of war against an enemy like China---an opponent with similar or even superior industrial production capabilities.

China steals our designs for the most part. A stolen design is not going to match the real deal. So we would certainly be far superior in equipment than China. And then there is the Chinese corruption that degrades their readiness. As for the missile and ammo supplies we probably retain a far superior stock pile and any aggressor would not be able to sustain the same pace we could even if we do run out in weeks.
Now I’m not suggesting we do nothing about it. We should ramp up production immediately. But I don’t think the outlook is as dire as made to believe.

Drones are where we need to invest much more than we presently do.

(08-05-2025 12:36 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 12:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-04-2025 12:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-04-2025 12:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-04-2025 08:56 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If Trump will not commit more support to Ukraine because of fear of WW3, then he sure as hell isn’t going to launch a 1st nuclear strike. This is TV drama for the US audience but it’s meaningless otherwise. If he wanted to appropriately respond and stand up to Putin, he would substantially increase US support in Ukraine. He’d reassert US leadership in NATO and ease their concerns that we’ve abandoned them.

No, this kabuki theatre reminds me of the sub battle scene from Hunt for Red October when Russian Captain Ramius is giving the appearance of its the Red October’s destruction, while he’s actually turning the sub over to the US.

I'd say Miko33 is closer to the target than you are here. Trump called Putin's nuclear bluff (it was always a bluff by the way).

I would suggest there are ways to vastly increase the Ukrainian defense abilities over what Biden was doing without actually engaging in the kind of escalation that providing new more modern American weapons might cause. Simply providing MORE of what is currently working is the best way to go in my opinion. Trump should immediately call for tripling the US production of artillery shells and anti-aircraft missiles (we need to do that regardless). That would allow us to agree to sell Ukraine a million artillery shells a year while selling them additional air defense missiles and systems. That would make a HUGE difference on the battlefield for the Ukrainian defense. The tripling of production would also allow us to do these things while actually still adding to our stockpiles (and providing an employment boost by the way).

The other thing I would do if I were Trump is find out where the bottle necks are for the Ukrainian production of their own domestic long range Neptune cruise missile. I would then make sure that whatever components are slowing down the production could be manufactured at scale for them in the west. If the Ukrainians could get to domestically producing 100+ of those Neptunes a month---with most of them being utilized on Russian oil refineries and key defense industries----I suspect Putin would quickly become FAR more interested in peace talks (especially if the increased artillery availability was causing the front to be even more frozen despite continued meat wave attacks).

One thing this war has brought out is how inadequate our defense manufacturing has become. We are running low on stocks sending only some things to Ukraine in a war in a relatively small theatre with armies of 300k-500k men fighting it out. There were battles with over a million men on each side in WWII.

Yup. Even the simulated war games in the Pacific theater where long distance strikes are the name of the game suggest we'd run out of stocks of key missiles within weeks---not months. Even three times the current production may be inadequate to quickly build the kind of stockpiles we really need to have. We may need to increase production closer to 10 fold to quickly build the stocks to the proper level and to insure we have adequate production facilities to continue to pump about enough ammo to sustain the kind of operational tempo we would need to fight that kind of war against an enemy like China---an opponent with similar or even superior industrial production capabilities.

China steals our designs for the most part. A stolen design is not going to match the real deal. So we would certainly be far superior in equipment than China. And then there is the Chinese corruption that degrades their readiness. As for the missile and ammo supplies we probably retain a far superior stock pile and any aggressor would not be able to sustain the same pace we could even if we do run out in weeks.
Now I’m not suggesting we do nothing about it. We should ramp up production immediately. But I don’t think the outlook is as dire as made to believe.

Drones are where we need to invest much more than we presently do.

Our stuff is better no doubt---so is our kill chain---but quantity matters. The Sherman wasnt as good as the Tiger tank. Not a single fighter in the Allied inventory could match a Me-262 jet fighter---but none of that mattered because there were roughly 36 Shermans for every 1 Tiger and 10 Mustangs and 10 Thunderbolts for every one Me-262. Look at Ukraine---you cant win a war using a 4 million dollar Patriot or even a 1 million dollar AIM-120 to kill a $40K Shaheed drone that can be cheaply produced by the thousands each month. Its not just stockpile capacity---there is also a need to spend smarter. We need cheaper mass produced solutions to address low tech weaponry like FPV-drones and Shaheds---that soon will be improved and enhanced with increasing levels of onboard AI. Interesting, a solution I mentioned months ago is being tested in the field in Ukraine. It is a reusable AI enhanced "fighter" drone that uses a mounted shot gun to hunt and shoot down enemy drones.

You are absolutely right AC. But the overwhelming philosophy doesn’t always work toward victory. It is being proved poor strategy now in Ukraine. The USSR was always willing to build a million tanks and send a million men but it hasn’t gotten them much more than a million tanks destroyed and a million men dead. We need to pay close attention and learn from this.
Overwhelming drone attacks are probably the Chinese next step. We need to learn how to defend against this and how to produce the same overwhelming drone attacks that can’t be easily stopped. Including sub surface naval drones.

One other thing, you can’t just look at the cost of missiles to take drones down as compared to the drone cost. You also have to factor in the cost of the target of the drone. The Russians probably wish they had better air defense when those cheap homemade drones are destroying hundreds of millions in military equipment and oil refineries.

(08-05-2025 01:14 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  One other thing, you can’t just look at the cost of missiles to take drones down as compared to the drone cost. You also have to factor in the cost of the target of the drone. The Russians probably wish they had better air defense when those cheap homemade drones are destroying hundreds of millions in military equipment and oil refineries.

The Russians are worse off than us. They apparently spent a crap load of money on expensive S-300/S-400 systems that arent nearly as effective as defense officials were led to believe. Our stuff is ridiculously expensive--but at least it works as advertised. FWIW---I suspect much of the Chinese stuff, which is mostly ripped off clones of Russian defense tech, is not going to perform as advertised either.

(08-05-2025 01:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 01:14 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  One other thing, you can’t just look at the cost of missiles to take drones down as compared to the drone cost. You also have to factor in the cost of the target of the drone. The Russians probably wish they had better air defense when those cheap homemade drones are destroying hundreds of millions in military equipment and oil refineries.

The Russians are worse off than us. They apparently spent a crap load of money on expensive S-300/S-400 systems that arent nearly as effective as defense officials were led to believe. Our stuff is ridiculously expensive--but at least it works as advertised. FWIW---I suspect much of the Chinese stuff, which is mostly ripped off clones of Russian defense tech, is not going to perform as advertised either.

I don’t believe it did in Pakistan. It’s garbage. Just look at the video of lawn mower drones from Ukraine lazily diving into Russian assets like major oil refineries. The only apparent defense is small arms fire. BTW they just destroyed a couple more S300s in Crimea with drones. No need for HARM missiles. A lawnmower drone will do just fine.

(08-04-2025 08:56 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If Trump will not commit more support to Ukraine because of fear of WW3, then he sure as hell isn’t going to launch a 1st nuclear strike. This is TV drama for the US audience but it’s meaningless otherwise. If he wanted to appropriately respond and stand up to Putin, he would substantially increase US support in Ukraine. He’d reassert US leadership in NATO and ease their concerns that we’ve abandoned them.

No, this kabuki theatre reminds me of the sub battle scene from Hunt for Red October when Russian Captain Ramius is giving the appearance of its the Red October’s destruction, while he’s actually turning the sub over to the US.

More like the Democratic Biden led withdrawal from Afghanistan that got Americans killed or the weakness shown in Syria that got more Americans killed.

Face facts Democrats are weak kneed Feminists hoping that Men will obey their orders all the while they sky scream for more women empowering governance

The absolute audacity of Emasculated Mensa being critical of anyone with a pair dealing with a messy bloody war his brain rotted fool all but initiated by sending Z plane tickets to escape .

Nobody cares to hear what cowed down split tail owned men think of war.

That had to be said because you a known coward who would rather implement gun control than protect his family has the gall to be critical

(08-04-2025 01:01 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Unfortunately for Putin, his Trump pedophilia kompromat is no longer a secret.

Whatever I bet you buy into the E Jean Caroll department store dressing room rape that was exhilarating for her. Unfortunately no else heard or knew about it

But idiots in NYC take her at her word

You are a fool’s fool if you believe they have something on Trump after trying to take his life

Your gross ignorance on the matter is underwhelming

Go read some biased propaganda by your heroes on the left and attempt to use garbage talking points as facts and see where it gets ya

Why don’t you keep your focus on a known Democratic sexual predator named Bill Clinton

Oh I forgot the blue tinted glasses don’t come off when Democrats are in question

(08-05-2025 10:18 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(08-04-2025 08:56 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  If Trump will not commit more support to Ukraine because of fear of WW3, then he sure as hell isn’t going to launch a 1st nuclear strike. This is TV drama for the US audience but it’s meaningless otherwise. If he wanted to appropriately respond and stand up to Putin, he would substantially increase US support in Ukraine. He’d reassert US leadership in NATO and ease their concerns that we’ve abandoned them.

No, this kabuki theatre reminds me of the sub battle scene from Hunt for Red October when Russian Captain Ramius is giving the appearance of its the Red October’s destruction, while he’s actually turning the sub over to the US.

More like the Democratic Biden led withdrawal from Afghanistan that got Americans killed or the weakness shown in Syria that got more Americans killed.

Face facts Democrats are weak kneed Feminists hoping that Men will obey their orders all the while they sky scream for more women empowering governance

The absolute audacity of Emasculated Mensa being critical of anyone with a pair dealing with a messy bloody war his brain rotted fool all but initiated by sending Z plane tickets to escape .

Nobody cares to hear what cowed down split tail owned men think of war.

That had to be said because you a known coward who would rather implement gun control than protect his family has the gall to be critical

The Afghanistan withdrawal was negotiated with the Taliban and initiated by Donald Trump. He left only 2500 American troops on the ground, a deteriorating theatre, and a May 2021 deadline for complete withdrawal. Biden pushed the final withdrawal back to August, which may have been a mistake. It provided more time for the Taliban, who negotiated in bad faith with Trump, to sow discontent and division with the Afghan army and turn what was supposed to be an ally into a complicit onlooker.

(08-05-2025 12:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Our stuff is better no doubt---so is our kill chain---but quantity matters. The Sherman wasnt as good as the Tiger tank. Not a single fighter in the Allied inventory could match a Me-262 jet fighter---but none of that mattered because there were roughly 36 Shermans for every 1 Tiger and 10 Mustangs and 10 Thunderbolts for every one Me-262. Look at Ukraine---you cant win a war using a 4 million dollar Patriot or even a 1 million dollar AIM-120 to kill a $40K Shaheed drone that can be cheaply produced by the thousands each month. Its not just stockpile capacity---there is also a need to spend smarter. We need cheaper mass produced solutions to address low tech weaponry like FPV-drones and Shaheds---that soon will be improved and enhanced with increasing levels of onboard AI. Interesting, a solution I mentioned months ago is being tested in the field in Ukraine. It is a reusable AI enhanced "fighter" drone that uses a mounted shot gun to hunt and shoot down enemy drones.

This pisses me off when it comes to our defense department...or maybe equally how our commanders are spoiled by American Excess. WTF are Patriots used on drones??? Maybe I'm just ignorant in military matters but haven't we had an effective solution to this decades ago? Don't our ships have the Phalanx system for attacks like these??? Isn't the tech capable of being applied on land???

(08-06-2025 08:05 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 12:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Our stuff is better no doubt---so is our kill chain---but quantity matters. The Sherman wasnt as good as the Tiger tank. Not a single fighter in the Allied inventory could match a Me-262 jet fighter---but none of that mattered because there were roughly 36 Shermans for every 1 Tiger and 10 Mustangs and 10 Thunderbolts for every one Me-262. Look at Ukraine---you cant win a war using a 4 million dollar Patriot or even a 1 million dollar AIM-120 to kill a $40K Shaheed drone that can be cheaply produced by the thousands each month. Its not just stockpile capacity---there is also a need to spend smarter. We need cheaper mass produced solutions to address low tech weaponry like FPV-drones and Shaheds---that soon will be improved and enhanced with increasing levels of onboard AI. Interesting, a solution I mentioned months ago is being tested in the field in Ukraine. It is a reusable AI enhanced "fighter" drone that uses a mounted shot gun to hunt and shoot down enemy drones.

This pisses me off when it comes to our defense department...or maybe equally how our commanders are spoiled by American Excess. WTF are Patriots used on drones??? Maybe I'm just ignorant in military matters but haven't we had an effective solution to this decades ago? Don't our ships have the Phalanx system for attacks like these??? Isn't the tech capable of being applied on land???

This is a new battleground. We maybe should have foreseen the intense use of drones but unfortunately didn’t.
The Germans and the Ukrainians have been working on a cheap interceptor that shows promise and has already been used to bring down shaheds. Solutions will be found.

In other news, sources say factions in the Kremlin have told rasPutin that this summer offensive must be successful. The next two months are critical for rasPutin as he has declared he is winning and will take the rest of the oblast he has parts of now. That he says, will satisfy the original objective of his SMO. His plan for this is to redirect all border guards to the meat grinder and use North Korean soldiers to protect his borders. Amazing plan.

Meanwhile sources say they have told rasPutin the economy will collapse if the war goes into the last quarter of this year and if it doesn’t end by winter they will have to accept Trump’s terms. This is being written about inside Russia. This will end rasPutin’s reign of terrorizing his neighbors. If true this probably factored into Trump’s shortening of the time line for peace talks and the quickening of sanctions.

It's in Kim's prophecy that Pootin will be assassinated by one of his own. The Bible states that any part of a prophecy that doesn't occur that the prophet is a fake. So far so good, and I'm still waiting to see if his prophecy about Pootins demise will come true.

Another prophecy was of a gigantic volcano in the west. Maybe with that huge earthquake in Russia it'll stir things up in Yellowstone. It's interesting to say the least.

(08-06-2025 12:34 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

Been down this road before so we'll see.

Anti drone technology is advancing fast.

https://www.army-technology.com/projects...a/?cf-view

https://www.twz.com/land/army-puts-50m-b...drone-tech

(08-06-2025 08:05 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-05-2025 12:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Our stuff is better no doubt---so is our kill chain---but quantity matters. The Sherman wasnt as good as the Tiger tank. Not a single fighter in the Allied inventory could match a Me-262 jet fighter---but none of that mattered because there were roughly 36 Shermans for every 1 Tiger and 10 Mustangs and 10 Thunderbolts for every one Me-262. Look at Ukraine---you cant win a war using a 4 million dollar Patriot or even a 1 million dollar AIM-120 to kill a $40K Shaheed drone that can be cheaply produced by the thousands each month. Its not just stockpile capacity---there is also a need to spend smarter. We need cheaper mass produced solutions to address low tech weaponry like FPV-drones and Shaheds---that soon will be improved and enhanced with increasing levels of onboard AI. Interesting, a solution I mentioned months ago is being tested in the field in Ukraine. It is a reusable AI enhanced "fighter" drone that uses a mounted shot gun to hunt and shoot down enemy drones.

This pisses me off when it comes to our defense department...or maybe equally how our commanders are spoiled by American Excess. WTF are Patriots used on drones??? Maybe I'm just ignorant in military matters but haven't we had an effective solution to this decades ago? Don't our ships have the Phalanx system for attacks like these??? Isn't the tech capable of being applied on land???

To be fair, at this point, the Ukrainians are mostly using the Patriots as a last line of defense---conserving them for use against ballistic missiles (they have almost no other defense against those). They have developed a quite sophisticated layered defense for taking Shaheds down more economically (they issued phone apps so civilian spotters can help locate threats and report their path) using everything from mobile MANPAD or anti-aircraft gun teams to chasing them down with the side door gunner of a chopper. That said, the US was using expensive Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles and sidewinders to shoot down crappy Shahed type drones in the Red Sea (far too costly a solution). Later, they were using the 5 inch gun later to down them----which is much cheaper---but its hard to blame the captains for not wanting to let these drones get close enough to be engaged by the SeaWiz. If something goes wrong at that range---and the ship takes damages and casualties---the question will be ""why didnt you take this out when it was farther out?". Economics wont be a good answer at that point with lives lost and 100 million in damage to a billion dollar ship.

We need cheap containerized drone interceptors that can be launched and take these drones out at an acceptably safe range. Lasers and smart shells (assuming the cost is right) are also potential options for economically dealing with this kind of swarming drone threat that will likely become far more common in the future.