Why the U.S. should oppose the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The conservative narrative depends on such lazyness.

 

Well, thank you for admitting it.

 

Sure thing buddy

 

Lets say US stop sending any kind of support to Ukraine. How do we use that money to solve homelessness?

 

How can US army be unprepared? I thought Trump made American military so great.

Now you telling me , just sending ammunition to Ukraine for 2 years US military is out of ammunition. And here I thought Trump made American military great.

 

The problem with first person perspective from anonymous posters is that they have an inflated sense of self-worth when the truth is life didn't skip a beat when they left it. Workers are easily replaced - especially in manufacturing.

And you're thinking this process can't possibly be sped up? Guess what, it can.

Sometimes, time limits are placed on subcontractors to get the job done or lose financially.

That would make you furthest from the process. You wouldn't know how many extras they ordered and if they were properly keeping secrecy, you wouldn't even know what they were used for.

None of these missiles are used by Ukraine. Making the claimed experience of an anonymous poster even less than worthless.

but not years.

But not in GMLRS . . .

The end manufacturer tends to have ample stock on hand to continue construction, especially when the parts are relatively small and don't take of much space. Stinger Missiles are still being manufactured at 40 per year despite a certain component not having been manufactured for decades. The missile is over 50 years old.

Generally speaking, the only dent in the arsenal for opposing Russia's war on Ukraine is in 155mm artillery ammunition primarily because the U.S. doesn't use very much in its wars since we have F-35s. But even here, production has simply increased to meet demand.

One might have a point if the opposition to Russia's war on Ukraine was actually depleting our ammunition supplies to levels our military wouldn't be able to fight, but that is simply not true.

 

Not highly trained workers who are assembling aero space products. Typically, it is not a constant assembly line. As they get new contracts, they assemble new products which requires them to be able to read engineering drawings and follow assembly instructions.

You have all but called me a liar about my aerospace experience. Briefly my history is as follows: I graduated from college with a four year engineering degree. I retired from the Air Force as an officer and Vietnam veteran. I went to work for Eagle Picher and then Martin Marietta. Martin Marietta merged with Lockheed and became Lockheed Martin.

Please tell us about your experience which qualifies you as an expert in the field.

It is not the same stinger missile. When the stinger missile first came out, Eagle Picher manufactured calcium calcium-chromate batteries for the stinger. When I left Eagle Picher, they were in the process of converting to lithium batteries. I not sure what the exact couple is now for their lithium batteries. Other components of the Stinger have also been upgraded.

Forty sidewinders would be used up in an few hours of intense combat.

They will stock extra parts only if the government decides to pay them for doing it and that seldom happens.

You might want to read a bit about Eagle Picher.
2022 Coolest Things Made in the Ozarks: Perseverance Rover Battery | Springfield Business Journal (sbj.net)

I knew exactly how much of every thermal battery ordered from Eagle Picher. Not so much on the other battery types.

Again, please tell us about your experience which qualifies you as an expert in the field.

 

So, you admit reading and following directions was an advanced skill in the 1970s. No wonder so many boomers had a flashing VCR 12:00.

Generally, speaking, these workers are easily obtainable now.

Why do you keep on doing this? Is there any way for me to verify any of that is true on an anonymous forum? No. That makes it irrelevant. Why is that so hard to understand? Start a blog, go on Twitter, or do Youtube. There you can publicize who you are.

What's an even bigger problem is that your supposed "experience" by your own admission is not relevant to Ukraine. The missiles you supposedly helped to build aren't there.

If I said I had 30 years experience designing and manufacturing Tomahawk Cruise missiles, it would be irrelevant because Tomahawk Cruise missiles are not used in Ukraine. The smaller munitions being used in Ukraine which have to be made in mass are automated assembly lines.

In addition, anything which I did say would have to be publicly available information which I could provide a link to. If I provided information which couldn't be found anywhere else, I would likely be violating government or corporate confidentiality which would get me in trouble.

So, why post about your experience in the defense industry when you're limited to publicly available information regardless? Chest thumping?

I'm not going to dox myself. This is an anonymous forum.

This has nothing to do with GMLRS or Ukraine - this is called a red herring.

They will do so whenever they believe it is in their best interest which includes purchasing additional stock.

Once again, the only ammunition we have limits on is 155mm artillery shells. The U.S. Armed Forces are doing just fine. There is no missile scarcity crisis.

 

No. they are not. You do not just plunk someone off the street and allow him to start building a missile. It takes more than reading skills. Most of those require training to meet government standards which requires testing and certification. The government would reject the product, if they found uncertified workers had built it.

Keeping components on hand requires capitol funds and storage. The storage also requires funding. Additionally, it requires more space to store the parts than the completed products.

Again show me your experience because you appear to show a complete lack of knowledge.

 

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-S... said the U.S. is,'re ramping up production."

You can unclench on that issue, stop wringing hands and clutching pearls. We're on it, just like we always are.

 

Wow, that's a boatload of American jobs.

Why so negative? Have you so little faith in your country? Do you truly think that those in command have no effing idea what they're doing? Do you doubt the skills, commitment, and productivity of your fellow Americans?

Sheesh!

 

Perhaps that explains why you often seem uninformed?

 

Are you kidding? Reduce the Defense budget? Oh, the horror!!!

 

Whatever that meant

 

See #37. Ammo assembly lines are on the job.

 

It meant that I find it hilariously ironic that a known rightie would suggest such a thing. That's a common liberal talking point.

 

What, are we playing truth or consequences.

 

That does not change the fact that the more sophisticated weapons like missiles can take a year or more from proposal to delivery.

 

You asked, I answered. Lose the snark, please.

 

Even if we're already manufacturing them? I disagree. It isn't as if the whole process must be spun up from nothing. And I worked for Lockheed, too.

 

Generally, they do not have a continuous line for a particular product. They build as new contracts come in.

 

Is Ukraine part of NATO? No, it is not. Further, we have given security guarantees to the Israelis, the Budapest Memorandum by contrast was a non binding document. Ukraine is also neither a US State or a US Protectorate.

One of Trump's smartest moves for example was moving US forces out of the way of the Turkish-Kurdish spat. A spat that served no interests and only would get Americans hurt or killed.

And while there's no officially recognized deployment, Americans have voluntarily served in the Ukrainian forces. So we are indeed a party to the conflict, there's no two ways about it.

And the conflict looks like it will be a bloody long one, one that again does not serve our interests. European security is not US Security.

 

HUH?

HUH?

YOU GOT ME?

 

Were the UK, China, or USSR part of NATO in 1940-1941? Did we have any pre-arranged security agreements with these nations? Because we supplied all of them weapons, ammunition, and economic aid prior to Pearl Harbor.

So, here's a question. Do you think this aid was good or bad? Cat's probably going to catch your tongue on that one.

No, we haven't . . . https://mei.edu/publications/us-sec...p-advance-israeli-palestinian-peace-not-avoid

NATO is a non-binding document.

will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary

The NATO members can do what they want which includes nothing or "sanctions".

The Budapest memorandum is irrelevant except to point out that Russia violated the treaty.

I'm so glad you figured that one out. Do you want a cookie?

Red Herring.

Have you ever gotten a U.S. passport? If you do, you might want to read it. There are some important warnings you might want to know about.

Americans have joined basically every conflict out there. Pointing to a few loners who may no longer be citizens is not evidence of U.S. involvement. It's evidence of a very weak, pathetic and poor argument.

Similar can be said of WWII. If only the U.S. had stayed out . . . the world would be a better place?