Soldato
I mean it could work to boost their own troops morale.. “Here’s that ****-bag who keeps sending you to die in a morass that’s continually being churned over by Ukrainian artillery. Watch him do the Fandango through a minefield”
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
Everyone wins! Morale boost all around!
Soldato
It’s strange how no one form the “we may as well give up” camp ever answers this question. Despite being asked multiple times.
Caporegime
border
Soldato
I see its triggering you like it is me.
It must be the most miss used word on this forum.
Caporegime
looolI see its triggering you like it is me.
It must be the most missused word on this forum.
mine is lose and loose..
Personally don't see it coming to fighting Russia closer to home, but the more the West appears like it can't be bothered to fight the more likely that becomes. I do see a very high likelihood if Ukraine does fall that we have a vastly costly security nightmare on our border though which will massively outweigh the economic costs, etc. of just doing more now... but like with COVID people are too short-sighted for that.
I was always under the impression the West (or atleast the intelligence community and such) want this to remain a stalemate of sorts for the foreseeable future because it bleeds Russia slowly and unites the West from a military standpoint. That ultimately it strengthens us. I’m sure it’s more nuanced than that but China essentially feels the same but for different reasons. They don’t want a strong, successful Russia anymore than we do but a subservient ally it can use as a buffer and cheap resource at rock bottom prices.
If Russia was the suddenly make big gains i expect the West would magically “refocus” and throw what is needed to push back.
Soldato
Yeah heavy Russian losses because right now the Russians are doing all the attacking and failing massively. Turns out when neither side has a dominant Air Force, and both sides have well defended positions with artillery and minefields, then armour trying to cross no man's land minefield while being pounded by drones and artillery is suicide
Last edited:
There does seem to be a lot of that. But unfortunately it is costing Ukrainian lives.
If you look at the bottom left pic, Iran have basically built an RC Vulcan xD
Soldato
That's a mute point...
It's the second one, that's the correct answer.
At the current rate they'll be out of tanks within two years (obviously problems would arise before they sent their very last tank to Ukraine, but that's the tiimescale anyway).
For reference he's 5'7", which also for reference was the height of Napoleon Bonaparte, hence the complex.
Last edited:
Apparently the troops have a high impression of him, though he could do with being a bit more down to earth and they're worried he may go to pieces in a crux.
saw a video throw out the tactical nuke option again, and show that it's too expensive to be useful and actually tactical nukes in general don't make sense using in modern combat
in order to clear the entire front line in Ukraine using Russia's version of the tactical nuke they would need to launch almost their entire stockpile and these weapons cost $25 million each, representing a cost of about $60 billion to clear the front line with tactical nukes - this of course assumes Russia has the number of nukes required and they are in working order, it also assumes the rest of the world does nothing in response.
Due to this cost, it's far cheaper to build conventional cruise missiles with that $60 billion as you will be able to hit more targets with it because you will end up with more than 10x more missiles.
in order to clear the entire front line in Ukraine using Russia's version of the tactical nuke they would need to launch almost their entire stockpile and these weapons cost $25 million each, representing a cost of about $60 billion to clear the front line with tactical nukes - this of course assumes Russia has the number of nukes required and they are in working order, it also assumes the rest of the world does nothing in response.
Due to this cost, it's far cheaper to build conventional cruise missiles with that $60 billion as you will be able to hit more targets with it because you will end up with more than 10x more missiles.
Russia would use tactical nukes if NATO got involved, they'd use them on airfields and other strategic targets like ports and railstations bringing in troops and armour. They wouldn't even be very effective against infantry who are underground in trenches. It costs $0 to use a weapon you have laying around though.
Soldato
- Status