SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I think it is clearly both. Politicians in the US are bought. Period
And the military industrial complex is extremely powerful in the USA
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Russia/Ukraine conflict
- Thread starter amolina
- Start date
I think it is clearly both. Politicians in the US are bought. Period
And the military industrial complex is extremely powerful in the USA
Not powerful enough apparently. We still can't get any new aid passed.
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
UnHerd with Freddie Sayers
Former CIA guy, I didn't disagree with him much on Gaza, Ukraine or Taiwan.
Former CIA guy, I didn't disagree with him much on Gaza, Ukraine or Taiwan.
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
Where's the source? Not on Sky News. Can't find a source anywhere else.
Russia out another SU-34, maintains a loss rate far exceeding their reported replacement rate capability:
Numerous reliable media outlets reporting a widespread failure of the Russian internet involving .ru domains.
Mass Blackout Takes Russian Internet Offline - The Moscow Times
“A technical problem has arisen affecting the .ru zone associated with the global DNSSEC infrastructure,” the .RU/.Рф Domain Coordination Center said in a statement to St. Petersburg-based news outlet Fontanka.
Mass Blackout Takes Russian Internet Offline - The Moscow Times
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
Re: GLSDB
That would be tomorrow...
www.politico.com
That would be tomorrow...
New US-made longer-range bomb expected to arrive as soon Wednesday in Ukraine
The Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb doesn't even exist in the U.S. inventory.
www.politico.com
Ah. Community notes to the rescue. This story appears to be nonsense.
I presume the Cuba rumour was derived from this: Put nuclear weapons in Cuba – Russian MP
IMO we should refrain here from just copying and pasting 'breaking news' unless we've carried out due diligence first. The Russian misinformation machines are working overtime currently. No names, you know who you are.
IMO we should refrain here from just copying and pasting 'breaking news' unless we've carried out due diligence first. The Russian misinformation machines are working overtime currently. No names, you know who you are.
Tiger
Active Member
Mostly optics, as US is in war (or special miltary operations) all over the world already.
But everything in US politics is just optics anyhow, but I digress.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I don't read it that way. The military industrial complex is not interested in a short, decisive war. To maximize profits, they would be most keen on a drawn out war that does not put pressure on them to invest in new production. So long as their present industrial capacity is maxed out and they can charge what the market will bear, their bought politicians are doing their job just fine.
Yeah but none of those, entanglements, are with a country that has nukes.Mostly optics, as US is in war (or special miltary operations) all over the world already.
In 2023 the defense sector put in 138 million in lobbying. The health sector put in 739 million.
The amount of influence that the defense sector puts into the government isn't as big as a lot of people think it is.
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
Maybe they offer non-monetary bribes in addition to the more run of the mill financial bribes?
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Lobbying money is the tip of the iceberg
I believe he means campaign contributions.
The defense industry actually contributes proportionately less in this regard.
Defense contractors don't want to have yo-yoing demand for their output. Spending a lot of money to build a new factory to make more ammunition and then having to close it down in three years is bad economy. Defense contractors want to see a long term demand before they are going to be willing to commit to expanded production.
For artillery ammunition, the demand probably is there. Western countries are now realizing that they are going to have to maintain a larger stock of artillery ammunition in peacetime so they will be expanding their own stockpiles as demand in Ukraine declines.
This war is showing the world that the face of warfare has changed. It's uncertain whether a Russian style of air defense could shut down NATO air or not, but if NATO could not use its air assets to their full extent, the job aircraft do has to be replaced by ground based solutions and more artillery will be required. The war is also showing that there is virtually no level of artillery ammunition that could be considered "enough".
I suspect NATO is looking at how to expand their land based capabilities and, of course, the best way to counter drones.
For good or bad, the Russians have declared various things as lines in the sand that if crossed, they will expand the war. Those lines were eventually crossed and they did not expand the war. It's becoming increasingly obvious that Russia is incapable of expanding the war. Everything they can produce is going into Ukraine with minimal results. Expanding the war would break the back of their military.
But western leaders were cautious early in the war because calling Russia's bluff and being wrong had extremely bad consequences.
The story is now gone from Twitter.
Re: GLSDB
That would be tomorrow...
New US-made longer-range bomb expected to arrive as soon Wednesday in Ukraine
The Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb doesn't even exist in the U.S. inventory.
This is good news. These bombs are cheap and easy to make. Once production gets going, Ukraine can get a lot of them.
Things in Washington have also been chaotic with the old alliances between defense contractors and the politicians changing. The Republican party was made up of a tripartite pact of interests: religious conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and those who were very pro-defense. The Democrats were generally less enthusiastic about defense, but during the cold war went along with it. A bit less so since the cold war ended.
Over the last 8 years the Republicans have had a rising faction of isolationists who really don't want to spend anything on the military and want to shrink US presence outside the US. The pro-defense faction still is still there, a number of them are in the Senate, but they have been largely silenced.
The Democrats are evolving into the pro-defense party, but they are going there reluctantly and there is a faction that is not thrilled with anything defense related. Defense contractors have found it difficult to find a friendly ear in Congress.
