U.S. Altered Himars Rocket Launchers to Keep Ukraine From Firing Missiles Into Russia

I've at least provided my source, what have you provided, conjecture?

 

I wasn't aware that Tomohawk Cruise missile information was hidden information for some.
How many links would you like?

 

You claim it, cite it.
And while you're at it, disprove my claim. And you know, all of the following;

 

The Tomahawk® cruise missile is a precision weapon that launches from ships and submarines and can strike targets precisely from 1,000 miles away, even in heavily defended airspace.
https://www.raytheonmissilesanddefe...e, powerful,even in heavily defended airspace.

Why did Russia opt for liquid-fuel in its next generation ICBMs?
https://rusi.org/explore-our-resear...sia-opt-liquid-fuel-its-next-generation-icbms

Russia has 3 bombers
TU-22M
TU-95
TU-160


The Tu-22M suffered from widespread maintenance problems during its service with the Soviet forces. These stemmed from poor manufacturing quality. The engines and airframes in particular had low service lives. The Air Force at one point sought to prosecute Tupolev for allegedly rushing the inadequate designs of the Tu-22M and the Tu-160 into service. This was compounded by the government bureaucracy, which hampered the provision of spare parts to allow the servicing of the Tu-22M. With some aircraft grounded for up to six months, the mission-capable rate of the aircraft in August 1991 was around 30–40%

With a total range of 1926 miles, makes it impossible to fly the needed 5500 miles to reach the US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M

The TU-160 was a B1 copy but only 16 are known to be in existence. Its not known how many actually fly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-160

TU-95
Range is 9300 miles, propeller driven,
500 have been built
https://nuke.fas.org/guide/russia/bomber/tu-95.htm

 

Thanks for delivering.

Interesting that these bombers and their variants are "cold-war" era. Yet there are new contenders in the lineup that is missed.
https://sputniknews.com/20170224/russia-stealth-bomber-1051011355.html?ysclid=lbighsa64s52520761

An interesting site, however, when you try to view the article's author, Dr Igor Sutyagin, you can't.
And in the following quoted paragraph it is stated in bold;

"There are strong indications that Russia has made the decision to develop a new-generation intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM): on 12 May, the contractor for the missile's preliminary design was announced."

This is inconclusive, "strong indications", it doesn't necessarily mean they have it.

PS, I'm not a fan of Wikipedia. Why, because any man and his dog can edit the pages so the info can be a bit, "Chinese whispers".

In regarding the "cruise missile" thing. you missed the point of the quoted paragraph of mine.

The bold text is what I was referring to in response to your "liquid-fueled" statement, and not it's comparison to the "Tomahawk".

 

This is the point and what Russia has.

The bulk of their bombers are prop driven cold war era aircraft.
Their existing ICBMs (excluding those lone wolf single warhead systems on vehicles) are all liquid fueled. They chose that platform (just like China) because they can carry up to a dozen warheads long range.
And there is no technology on the planet that will fuel a cruise missile 5500 miles.

Meaning Russia's fall from the cold war financially has kept most of its technology where it is today. They do not have first strike capability which in the global nuclear world means, the ability to strike first and render its opponent unable to respond. Fueling a liquid fueled ICBM in a silo has proven to be quite deadly. Even the US had blown up a few silos trying it. The two propellants in a liquid fueled ICBM combust on contact. If you have every watched a shuttle launch you will notice they fuel it right before launch and you can see the venting required and the smoke and condensation venting from the fuel tank while fueling. Now imagine that inside a silo. Yeah, you get the point.

We have birds looking down on Russia 24/7 and they have birds looking down on the US. What do you think they watch the most? If Russia starts fueling an ICBM (which can't be reversed) and takes 60-90 minutes, US subs would take it out with cruise missiles. Our Minutemen Missiles are solid rocket fueled, can be fueled in a closed silo, and can be launched in under 10 minutes if necessary. I know a lot about these systems as my dads first duty station after graduating from the US Air Force academy was Cheyenne Mountain complex for North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and I have had a life long interest in those systems even through my US Army career in aviation.

If you are wondering about Russia's abilities, you need look no further than their disaster in Ukraine. And these numbers are current as of 10 minutes ago

Russia's current losses
376,000 personal
5917 Armored combat vehicles
2840 Tanks
1927 Artillery units
281 Aircraft
264 Helicopters
16 ships and boats

https://www.minusrus.com/en

And these loses are against a country whos standing military forces consisted of 193,000 soldiers.

Not to mention that the Russian army has lots of soldiers deserting and thousands upon thousands leaving Russia to avoid mandatory service. Then you can start to add in the officers Putin has jailed for failing in Ukraine. Meaning that Russia does not represent the power of the old soviet union. They are a shell of that left over government and military.

So don't let the media scare tactics overstate Putins abilities. If he even flinched like he was going to launch, Russia would be a very quiet place for about 10,000 years.

 

This is an outside source reporting on the above, it seems biased and I dare say because of that, inaccurate.

Remember...

“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

 

The United States has enough arms to nuke ever last inch of Russia. It won't and it wouldn't need too. Given Russia's performance with Ukraine we would just go in conventionally and remove them.

 

And @Jeanette (who apparently knows nothing about Russia) doesn't realize that despite the sheer size of Russia its population and industry is actually concentrated into a smaller area than that of the U.S. A legacy of Soviet era centralization.

 

lol

 

If its an outside source, why would they be biased. lol
You going to just make this up as you go because you don't like results?
You asked for links and I provided them
So now you can provide links that disprove what I provided
But you can't.

Which means nothing in relation to Russia right now
You can find Russian loses in Ukraine on about a hundred different websites
If you elect to be sold on what the media is telling you, thats your choice
Yet most already know what I posted is true

If you think you can dispute what I posted, help yourself
But if you could have, you would have

 

No, I looked at many sites that claim the tally to compare to what you cited, and they're all inconsistent.
It the same goes for the MSM, they spew the same narrative and never tell the full and accurate story.

It has everything to do with it, because you have caught on to it doesn't mean it's not happening. It means you don't understand political and military tactics. And don't say, "oh, and I do". No, I take it in my stride and have an educated guess that Putin is playing a war of attrition now. Winter is coming and the EU & NATO are/will be upshitcreek.
So obviously warfare and tactics are not a strong suit for you? Sun Tzu means nothing

I don't get my info via MSM as you may and others. As corporate media a funded by globalists, I prefer the little alt-media guy who isn't in for the profit of selling a bullshit headline. Can you confirm what you claim now on "official" reports, say like from Russia? I have, and it is difficult. But you can fantasise about "most already know what I posted is true".

I already have, haven't I. Or have you forgotten, short memory or something?
What have all my previous posts about your comments been? Warms ups.

 

Prove it.

You're attributing Russia's heavy loses to the art of war? Russia has planned these loses to make his enemy think he's weak?

So according to you, an outside source is biased but information from Russia isn't?
You really make me laugh out loud

So now you think because you commented on something, thats disputing the information?
Hilarious

So lets get a few things straight

You thought cruise missiles could reach the US from Russia because you saw a cartoon about it
You didn't know how to even look up or Google what a cruise missile is
You didn't know anything about solid rocket fueled vs liquid fueled missiles
You didn't know the bulk of Russian bombers were propeller driven
You didn't know why Russia opted for liquid fueled missiles
You don't know how to confirm Russian loses in the Ukraine war
You didn't know if I was providing current military info or historical Cold-War era data

But one quote from Sun Tzu and magically you're a military expert.
Please. You have no clue what your talking about. Just move on and let the media control your every thought.
That will work best for you.

 

If that's what floats your boat. If you can't identify the fact that I did question your post, maybe it's you that has a problem.

So from the following quote, all you got out of it was in bold text. It seems you lack the ability to read anything that is pertinent to the argument, and if that's your shot at the title, it's lame. One more time for the slow people in the peanut gallery.

"Putin announced an "unstoppable" nuclear-powered "global cruise missile" that has "practically unlimited" range, then showed an animation of the device bobbing and weaving around the globe. He also played a computer animation of a high-speed, nuke-armed submarine drone blowing up ships and coastal targets."

What should have been raised it the bold text above, but you chose an idiotic response instead.

No, didn't need to. The point I was making which I made clear later was in relation to fuel systems, REMEMBER!? Or do you need help with that too?

Nothing was questioned about that, you're creating false information, point out where I had no clue about the rocket fuel systems, entertain me.

You like to make incredible claims, show me where I stated the above. I recall I was the one that pointed out your relic aircraft.

Ahaha, neither did you!

Hmm, look at websites that show stats, but the trick is getting accurate data. Do you know how, since your asking me?

Ring any bells?

I provided you with a link to the updated bombers, was it not? Forgetful again, who pointed out they were (what you posted) a link to cold-war era bombers? I do recall I did that.

Typical rubbish arguments. It appears you're using your inadequacies in your arguments and trying to have me own your crap. No, you'll have to do better than that. Plus you don't quote me on my posts that you point out
as I do, because you don't and that makes you full of it.


“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

 

So when you question something, you think you disputed it. Thanks for making my point

Another perfect example of how you are easily manipulated by media and have no resources (or ability) to verify it. You just post away like you provided something important.

False, You asked me to verify what a cruise missile is from the following post

Who was it that posted this again?

Next

Thats weird, so you didn't post this quoting my post?

Then you quoted my post with highlights of what you were asking for

You don't even remember your own post
Next

Look above. I guess you forgot that as well.

Really, it wasn't me who posted this for you?

You look confused.
Next

But let Putin show you a cartoon and your all over the boards asking me to disprove it.
Funny how you jump from being so sucked in to nothing provided you has any credibility when you don't have a clue what your discussing.
Next

You mean bells like this post from you????????????

One of the worlds most prolific authors on military arms? You couldn't even find out who he was?
Heres some educational reading for you since AGAIN your ability to look up anything you don't agree with simply eludes you.
https://rusi.org/people/sutyagin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Sutyagin
Igor Vyacheslavovich Sutyagin born 17 January 1965) is a Russian arms control and nuclear weapons specialist. In 1998, he became the head of the subdivision for Military-Technical and Military-Economic Policy at the Institute for US and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, where he worked before he was arrested for treason on accusations he had given information to a British company, although he had no access to classified documentation as a civilian researcher. Sutyagin spent 11 years in prison on espionage charges and was released by Russia in 2010 in exchange for the release of a group of spies arrested in the United States.
With a degree in physics as well as history, Sutyagin worked on topics relating to U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons development, deployment and control and he is a co-author of a well-respected book on the Russian strategic nuclear forces
As of 2018, Sutyagin is a Research Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies in London.

Showing again your lack of ability to verify anything. All you have done is dispute links you don't like with made up claims about their credibility
Laughable at best
Next

You used my link I provided verifying the bulk of the Russian propeller bombers.
I guess you forgot that part as well. You didn't dispute anything and still haven't.
Next

Which has what to do with anything I have posted? Didn't you post this

Showing again your inability to disseminate information accurately.
Appearing weak as a strategy, doesn't mean actually being weak. Russia's heavy losses is global information and tracked by every US ally on the planet.
The fact you would even post something like that is distinct confirmation you are clueless about what it means.

 

So tell me then, what was it that I did or didn't do then? How else do you question a narrative, you ask questions and make a counter-argument right, or you forgot about that?

I understand now. You don't know how the read my question above. I was asking you whether you knew what you were posting was relevant to current Russian military hardware, but it seems you take a different perspective and look at it as if I don't know. Hmm, why ask that question then? Who has trouble discerning info/questions?

Does the info need to be "Wikipedia" verified or something? How do you know that the technology is bullshit? Disprove then.
What is mind-blowing is that you take the bold text over what is not.
""Putin announced an "unstoppable" nuclear-powered "global cruise missile" that has "practically unlimited" range, then showed an animation of the device bobbing and weaving around the globe. He also played a computer animation of a high-speed, nuke-armed submarine drone blowing up ships and coastal targets."

Please show the question, the actual question I asked. Once again, mincing your statements to seem like they are mine. You do know the difference between a statement and a question, right? Wrong.

Seriously? You don't know the difference between quoting your posts and my posts?
Is the following the "link" that I used, "copied".

Then I provided my link

So how is that I used your link?

It is understandable why you don't understand my usage of said quote. If you did, you wouldn't have questioned it.

It's not my inability to disseminate, it is yours. If you understood the Art of War quote, you'd understand its relevance. But because you can't and don't, it is you that is clueless.

 

I'm not going to be drawn into these roundy rounds with you. If you think you can dispute the information with credible evidence, show me.
Until then the information I provided is undisputed by anyone I know of or can look up.

And is verified by the foremost authority on Russian assets. Igor Sutyagin.
His provisions are also undisputed and taken as fact by the United States, Canada, and the Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies in London

1. The bulk of their bombers are prop driven cold war era aircraft.
2. Their existing ICBMs (excluding those lone wolf single warhead systems on vehicles) are all liquid fueled.
3. They chose that platform (just like China) because they can carry up to a dozen warheads long range.
4. And there is no technology on the planet that will fuel a cruise missile 5500 miles.
5. The Russian army has lots of soldiers deserting and thousands upon thousands leaving Russia to avoid mandatory service
6. Russia does not represent the power of the old soviet union.

Current Russia's current losses against Ukraine
376,000 personal
5917 Armored combat vehicles
2840 Tanks
1927 Artillery units
281 Aircraft
264 Helicopters
16 ships and boats

https://www.minusrus.com/en

You can provide a resource that disproves what is posted, but your opinion disputes nothing.

 

What makes you think the fallout of a few nuclear weapons would be that big a deal globally? You do know that thousands of nuclear weapons were detonated in the open air around the world in the 1950s and 60s.

And before you say it remember that nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 60s were FAR LARGER than today.

 

In case you need reminding, you're the one who started the "roundy rounds".Does that mean your plans to bamboozle me with your bullshit failed? Oh well, maybe next time.

Here are the stats that I found that are ambiguous. This proves my point that the data online is inaccurate.

https://uawar.net/stats
https://www.grid.news/story/global/...ounting-russian-casualties-in-the-fog-of-war/
https://index.minfin.com.ua/en/russian-invading/casualties/
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-russian-militarys-heavy-losses-from-ukraine-in-charts-2022-3
https://www.rt.com/russia/563213-ukraine-donbass-military-losses/?ysclid=lbk0845pus691902405
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/04...ster-873-tanks-destroyed-21800-dead-soliders/

The above are just a few to prove that the stats and data are and cannot be accurate, as the varying sites show different data. Go figure. What sources are accurate?

 

Weren't most of them detonated underwater, and subterranean tests, with only a few above ground?
When you have two or more nations slinging nukes left right and centre, what do you think will occur? Radioactive fallout. And depending on how many are detonated, will determine the size and duration of the radioactive dust clouds that will block the sun and eventually kill off plants/trees etc, then animals and humans.
If it were just a few small ones, it would only be local, providing prevailing winds don't carry all that crap to nearby regions.
No one wins

 

Before the Partial Test Ban Treaty, hundreds of nuclear weapons were detonated in the open air. Including the famous largest nuclear weapon the 50 megaton "Tsar Bomba" by the U.S.S.R.

Fallout is more a product of the type of nuclear detonations. Ground bursts produce fallout as they drive massive amounts of irradiated surface material into the air. Air bursts produce little if any fallout.

 

Valid points, but still, the radioactive fallout regardless of the type of detonation still creates a shitstorm for the environment and those that live in it.

 

Depends on a host of other factors doesn't it? Proximity and duration of exposure for example. Remember, most of the cast and crew on the movie "The Conqueror" DID NOT get cancer.

 

A shitstorm? Is that the technical term?

If you look at Chernobyl, which was far worse than what any nuclear weapon would produce, you get nothing that I would call a shitstorm. It's a big wildlife refuge full of thriving fauna and flora.

 

If you're talking about the John Wayne movie, 1956, I don't like using Wikipedia, but for this instance, I will.

"Of the 220 film crew members, 91 (comprising 41% of the crew) developed cancer during their lifetime, while 46 (or 21%) died from it. When this was learned, many suspected that filming in Utah and surrounding locations, near nuclear test sites, was to blame.[8] Although the number of cancer cases among the cast and crew is in line with the average for adults in the US at the time, the perception of a link between the film's location and subsequent illness remains, not least because many of those involved in the film developed cancer at a younger age than average".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conqueror_(1956_film)

Far too coincidental that 41% get cancer and 21% die from it. Considering the location used and what the surrounding areas were previously used for.

"The shockwave and heat that the detonation of a single nuclear weapon creates can end the lives of millions of people immediately."
"The first reason for this is nuclear fallout. Radioactive dust from the detonating bombs rises up into the atmosphere and spreads out over large areas of the world from where it falls down and causes deadly levels of radiation."
"The second reason is less widely known. But this consequence – ‘nuclear winter’ and the worldwide famine that would follow – is now believed to be the most serious consequence of nuclear war."
https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-weapons-risk