US sending controversial cluster bombs to Ukraine risking escalation & collateral damage

IF....Russia ever gets to a point where they feel they may actually lose one of these wars, you can bet they will use nukes. And they will use them on all who they feel are participating in their defeat. When we support Ukraine, we position ourselves as a potential enemy and target of Russia...
Turn this around, if Russia was feeding Cuba with weapons as the attack the USA....
 

JustDave said:
That's not the only way. Russia has shown us how incompetent and ill prepared for war they actually are. I would arm Ukraine to the teeth to end the war. To pull the carpet out from under the Ukraine is unacceptable to me, but that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Including Nukes? Ukraine is playing with a dragon here....the Russians can and will end this war if they feel they are at risk. This is exactly how a war to end all wars can again get started, only this time it will end in nuclear war! Be careful what you wish for...
 
Timewise 60+ said:
Including Nukes? Ukraine is playing with a dragon here....the Russians can and will end this war if they feel they are at risk. This is exactly how a war to end all wars can again get started, only this time it will end in nuclear war! Be careful what you wish for...
Click to expand...
Ukraine did not invite the dragon. It just showed up. Predicting what an enemy will do is like placing a bet. You can never be entirely sure of it's reaction to your defense, but I'm betting Russia will not destroy itself in a nuclear war, especially when the people making the decisions have the alternative of living out their lives in comfort that few people can dream of. They can retreat, and leave the rest of the world alone, while maintaining their comfortable lives, or they can opt for self destruction. I'm betting they won't opt for self destruction. Are there risks in this? Of course. There are always risks. But opting out of the "game" does not create a risk free environment. Not when the uninvited dragon just shows up.
 

Just Dave....if Russia decides to use a nuke on Ukraine, I don't believe that the USA or GB will attack Russia with nukes starting a global nuclear war. Your basic assumption is flawed...

If Russia is pressed, they will do whatever it takes to stop Ukraine from winning.....
 
Timewise 60+ said:
IF....Russia ever gets to a point where they feel they may actually lose one of these wars, you can bet they will use nukes. And they will use them on all who they feel are participating in their defeat. When we support Ukraine, we position ourselves as a potential enemy and target of Russia...
Turn this around, if Russia was feeding Cuba with weapons as the attack the USA....
Click to expand...

I'm not yet convinced Russia will use Nukes due to the war with Ukraine. I do believe however that Russia want’s everyone to ‘believe’ that they will use Nukes. Including moving Nukes around within their own country, and also redeploying some Nukes in neighbouring countries. This type of thing keeps people worried, causing them to potentially back down.

At what point does the world back down at every turn that Russia makes. How much sovereign independent territories does the world allow them to take. Purely rhetorical questions.
 
You have to consider the country that is being taken over. If it were Great Briton, the USA would respond aggressively! But, Ukraine...I don't think so....maybe just stop trading or 'slap their hands' in some other way...
 
Timewise 60+ said:
Just Dave....if Russia decides to use a nuke on Ukraine, I don't believe that the USA or GB will attack Russia with nukes starting a global nuclear war. Your basic assumption is flawed...
Click to expand...
Take a look at your own assumption before you call mine flawed. Remember, you began this exchange with:
IF....Russia ever gets to a point where they feel they may actually lose one of these wars, you can bet they will use nukes. And they will use them on all who they feel are participating in their defeat.
Click to expand...
Your assumption that the US and GB would not retaliate with nuclear weapons if they are attacked is very flawed. Russia has not demonstrated itself to be nuke happy. They withdrew from Afghanistan without nuking anybody when faced with stalemate. Russia can lose a war without blowing up the world.
 
Alligatorob said:
Do you think more weapons would really make that much difference? By most definitions I think we have already armed Ukraine "to the teeth".
Click to expand...
Not from what I've read. Reports I'm getting are that Ukraine is rapidly running out of munitions and needs more.
 
Alligatorob said:
Do you think more weapons would really make that much difference? By most definitions I think we have already armed Ukraine "to the teeth".
Click to expand...
No, not more weapons, but what's needed asap is the right type of weapons. And they don't need weapons of mass destruction, they need more accurate missile systems and air defense systems. Those are coming, as you probably know, in the form of PRISMs, which can be launched from some of the MANPADS and all of the HIMARS they already have, and the F-16s.
 
^^^ 155mm artillery rounds. The world has been searching for those for months to supply Ukr.

"As of September[2022], the U.S. military had a limited number of 155-mm artillery rounds in its stockpiles, and limited numbers of guided rockets, rocket launchers, howitzers, Javelins and Stingers, according to an analysis by Mr. Cancian.

The shortage in 155-mm artillery shells “is probably the big one that has the planners most concerned,” Mr. Cancian said.

“If you want to increase production capability of 155 shells,” he said, “it’s going to be probably four to five years before you start seeing them come out the other end.” "
 
The thing about "escalation" in the form of a nuclear threat is that the Kremlin keeps moving their red line. They drew the line at any support for Ukraine at all, but did nothing when support happened. They drew a new line at providing HIMARS and moved it again after the US delivered them. Same with tanks....same with every new red line.
 
againstthegrain said:
^^^ 155mm artillery rounds. The world has been searching for those for months to supply Ukr.

"As of September[2022], the U.S. military had a limited number of 155-mm artillery rounds in its stockpiles, and limited numbers of guided rockets, rocket launchers, howitzers, Javelins and Stingers, according to an analysis by Mr. Cancian.

The shortage in 155-mm artillery shells “is probably the big one that has the planners most concerned,” Mr. Cancian said.

“If you want to increase production capability of 155 shells,” he said, “it’s going to be probably four to five years before you start seeing them come out the other end.” "
Click to expand...
And the US has to keep its own supply handy.

https://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-increasing-production-of-155mm-artillery-shells-2023-1?op=1
 
Murrmurr said:
And the US has to keep its own supply handy.

https://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-increasing-production-of-155mm-artillery-shells-2023-1?op=1
Click to expand...
Could not read the article, however if "The shortage in 155-mm artillery shells “is probably the big one that has the planners most concerned,” Mr. Cancian said. "If you want to increase production capability of 155 shells,” he said, “it’s going to be probably four to five years before you start seeing them come out the other end.” " is true it seems to me we have a bigger problem.

I believe we ought to be able to support a war larger and longer than this one, just for our own self-defense. High tech weapons are great, but if they are too expensive to produce lots of that would worry me. And 155 shells are not all that high tech...
 
Alligatorob said:
Could not read the article, however if "The shortage in 155-mm artillery shells “is probably the big one that has the planners most concerned,” Mr. Cancian said. "If you want to increase production capability of 155 shells,” he said, “it’s going to be probably four to five years before you start seeing them come out the other end.” " is true it seems to me we have a bigger problem.

I believe we ought to be able to support a war larger and longer than this one, just for our own self-defense. High tech weapons are great, but if they are too expensive to produce lots of that would worry me. And 155 shells are not all that high tech...
Click to expand...
Per the article...

  • The US is aiming to increase production of a key artillery shell used by Ukraine.
  • The hope is to manufacture 90,000 rounds of 155mm ammunition by 2025.
  • The US currently makes just over 14,000 rounds per month.
"
The United States is planning to dramatically ramp up production of a key artillery round that Ukraine has used to beat back Russia's full-scale invasion of the country, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

Under the latest proposal, the US aims to within two years produce up to 90,000 rounds 155mm of ammunition every month, The Times reported, citing a US Army report.

That's more than double the goal detailed just last month by Army Secretary Christine Wormuth, who told reporters the goal was to manufacture "20,000 rounds a month" by this spring and 40,000 by 2025.

The increase comes after some US officials have expressed concern that US aid to Ukraine has depleted the country's stockpile of the ammunition. Last summer, one defense official told The Wall Street Journal that the country's supply of 155mm rounds was "uncomfortably low" and "not at the level we would like to go into combat."


As of January 18, the US had already committed to providing Ukraine with at least 160 M777 Howitzers and just under 1.1 million of the 155mm artillery rounds they use. But it is burning through them fast.

Currently, the US produces just over 14,000 rounds of 155mm ammunition every month. As The Washington Post reported last month, Ukrainian forces have previously fired that many rounds in the span of 48 hours."
 
Alligatorob said:
Could not read the article, however if "The shortage in 155-mm artillery shells “is probably the big one that has the planners most concerned,” Mr. Cancian said. "If you want to increase production capability of 155 shells,” he said, “it’s going to be probably four to five years before you start seeing them come out the other end.” " is true it seems to me we have a bigger problem.

I believe we ought to be able to support a war larger and longer than this one, just for our own self-defense. High tech weapons are great, but if they are too expensive to produce lots of that would worry me. And 155 shells are not all that high tech...
Click to expand...
Artillery is paramount in this war because of Ukr's lack of other missile platforms, air defense, modern jets, and RU control of the airspace. The US wouldn't have those limitations and would be able to fight using combined combat arms, vs the WW1 style war in the Ukr that is ongoing. Ukraine needs to stand off from the front to conserve men by using the 155's so that when they're fully trained on all the new weapons they can push RU out completely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top