Reply to: Government Lies

[OwlHoot]

How low can you go?

Lower than a snake's belly button!

[SueEllen]

Just about a jack Russel your honour!

I thought piglets were smaller.

[vetran]

How low can you go?

Just about a jack Russel your honour!

[SueEllen]

In other news, Pope is Catholic, bears tulips in the woods.

How low can you go?

[NotAllThere]

Government Lies

In other news, Pope is Catholic, bears tulips in the woods.

[DoctorStrangelove]

Currently we wouldn't live but the Russians would its not mutual or assured , by the time we realised they had sent the rockets our silos would have been bombed. that is what the stealth supersonic improvements in Vlads armoury mean.

Silos? What Silos? This ain't Kansas.

[OwlHoot]

Not really...

a) You would effectively declare war if any NATO military downed a Russian plane. That would not be wise

b) There are sophisticated missiles that the Ukrainian military could use - if they can acquire them and be properly trained in using them. We don't want to shoot down an airliner by mistake, do we...

c) If you declare a no fly zone, you would ban everything, including commercial flights. Ukraine is a big place and you can't divert over Russian territory, so there are huge logistical implications

d) The West are already supplying fire-and-forget weaponry to Ukraine and they are using them quite effectively. Most of the airborne armaments are unmanned missiles anyway, you can't hit them with a shoulder-fired weapon.

Sadly reality is a bigger driver of UK military thinking than Rambo rhetoric. And just for the record, out little country has a very big fist.

Lots of good points, and also:

* I read that the Russians don't rely too much, or to the same extent as the Yanks for example, on aircraft anyway. So for them, using mainly artillery, these are more of a nice to have than a sine qua non.

* Come to think of it, preventing what air-based smart bomb technology the Russians might use could actually be detrimental to the Ukrainians as it would mean more "dumb" bombing and shelling, and thus more collateral damage and casualties

* The Russians and (accidently) Ukrainians would be taking pot shots at NATO aircraft over Ukraine. So enforcing the zone would be pretty difficult and dangerous.

[jamesbrown]

It's a myth that hypersonic glide vehicles are faster or clearly advantageous over ICBMs. They are not faster and they are not better at evading missile defense systems, but missile defense systems are massively are over-hyped too (at least for this application).

[NotAllThere]

I just want nukes that are faster than Vlads , note he waited until he had supersonic nukes before he kicked this off.

I meant nuclear power stations... Anyway, ICBMs travel at about 24000kph; there's been supersonic nukes for decades.

Interestingly, as a Kleptocracy, Russian procurement works by spending a few billion on some weaponry, syphoning it into a few offshore bank accounts, and then using the rest to buy substandard parts that fall apart on use.

[malvolio]

small countries talking big what a surprise.

Not really...

a) You would effectively declare war if any NATO military downed a Russian plane. That would not be wise

b) There are sophisticated missiles that the Ukrainian military could use - if they can acquire them and be properly trained in using them. We don't want to shoot down an airliner by mistake, do we...

c) If you declare a no fly zone, you would ban everything, including commercial flights. Ukraine is a big place and you can't divert over Russian territory, so there are huge logistical implications

d) The West are already supplying fire-and-forget weaponry to Ukraine and they are using them quite effectively. Most of the airborne armaments are unmanned missiles anyway, you can't hit them with a shoulder-fired weapon.

Sadly reality is a bigger driver of UK military thinking than Rambo rhetoric. And just for the record, out little country has a very big fist.

[vetran]

There was an interview on BBC couple of days ago, apparently imposing a no fly zone without actually shooting aircraft down is pretty impractical anyway, forget the details.

small countries talking big what a surprise.

[vetran]

You'd live a couple of minutes longer than most Russians, so win, win!



It was especially stupid of the Wee Krankie to say that NATO shouldn't rule out trying to impose a No Fly Zone over Ukraine, because the submarine base at Faslane is near the top of their nuclear target list!

Currently we wouldn't live but the Russians would its not mutual or assured , by the time we realised they had sent the rockets our silos would have been bombed. that is what the stealth supersonic improvements in Vlads armoury mean.

[xoggoth]

There was an interview on BBC couple of days ago, apparently imposing a no fly zone without actually shooting aircraft down is pretty impractical anyway, forget the details.

[OwlHoot]

I just want nukes that are faster than Vlads , ..

You'd live a couple of minutes longer than most Russians, so win, win!

.. If he can track submarines he is able to remove those from the equation.

It was especially stupid of the Wee Krankie to say that NATO shouldn't rule out trying to impose a No Fly Zone over Ukraine, because the submarine base at Faslane is near the top of their nuclear target list!

[vetran]

Wake up to the TRUTH SHEEPLE!

Although points 1 to 5 I agree with you. What do we want? More nukes. When do we want them? Ten years ago!

I just want nukes that are faster than Vlads , note he waited until he had supersonic nukes before he kicked this off. It was a hardly subtle hint at his intentions.

The mutually & assured bits are a big part of the success of MAD. If he can track submarines he is able to remove those from the equation.