Jump to content

BamaATL

Full Members
  • Posts

    4541
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BamaATL

  1. 32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Well, Ukraine has already done the West a tremendous favor by depleting the shit out of Russia's armored vehicle stock.  Might as well give us the cherry on top of wiping out a shitload of their aircraft as well.  

    I got $5 on the money line that says russians manage to kill more in friendly fire than anything.  Well, that combined losing a lot of planes.  Also, I'm being their sorties are just as telegraphed as their tank efforts, so its gonna be a turkey shoot.  Happy hunting boys. 

    I know this, I sure as hell wouldn't want to be russian tanker, but the life expectancy of a russian pilot may well now be just as bad.  

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  2. 21 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

    No. In order to have a deterrent, they can't let anybody find out they used them all.

    That is true, but it makes a significant assumption; that we don't already know.  Sure you could bluff if no one has any idea as to what you already have.  However, that simply isn't the case in this instance.  Until I think 2019, the russians participated in IAEA regular inspections, and while you don't exactly get to look under the hood in those, inspectors would could a sense of realistic capability, even if they are lying; which they would be.  Additionally, in culture so rife with corruption, I think its a reasonable assertion that bribery in exchange for information is fairly commonplace.  

    The other part of this that someone else mentioned I think is important to consider is that its likely very few people in even russia actually know the real capability and readiness.  Considering that overall theft of the state budget has been part of putin's russia, and putins personal agenda, it makes sense that he would compartmentalize spending and only a very small few would even have an idea.  If anyone asks, the answer probably is, "Don't worry comrade, putin is personally overseeing that.", end of conversation (not that many would have the balls to ask).   

    The conclusion I arrive at (and this is just me), is that when they saber rattle, it's done so for public consumption in the west; in the hopes that the fear associated with the threat (real or perceived), is enough to put pressure on western decisions.  

    But then again, I've been wrong plenty of times before; and it's unlikely that I will stop being wrong any time soon.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  3. 24 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

    Just went with the first number I saw online. 3% of their nuclear arsenal is still 134 nuclear bombs. I think the estimate is that you'd only need about 100 nukes to essentially destroy the entire world

    That is true, it would still constitute a very destructive force.  However, in order to have a deterrent, you can't use them all.  Now would constitute a deterrent. I have no idea, but that does invariably limit what they could use in a purely offensive way.  

    23 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    You can't compare budgets like that without at least looking at purchasing power parity. You can get a lot more for a dollar in Russia than in the United States. 

    This also is true, however, I didn't calculate any sort of number for theft loss within the russian military in part because I figured purchasing power and theft would be a wash.  Admittedly, that's a big assumption.  

    24 minutes ago, tokamak said:

    Well now I'm super comforted by the thought that a huge percentage of their nuclear arsenal is rotting away in warehouses without any maintenance, guarded by drunks and convicts, and overseen by the corrupt. What could possibly go wrong?

    You do realize that these go inert without maintenance?  They aren't really a threat without the warheads being replaced about every 8 to 10 years.  I think that's part of the reason they have been using dummy missiles without warheads, they haven't been maintained, are useless otherwise.  The good news is, the ones that aren't heavily guarded are likely inert.  

    The bigger take away isn't that they can't afford it now, it's that they never could afford it.  Additionally.  we have people who have a job that is entirely about studying all this, and if some guy like me can draw at least some rough assumptions, I'm pretty confident in saying that not only do intel people have extraordinary insight into this, they likely know where just about everything is.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 2
  4. So I got to thinking about maintenance/operations costs associated with military spending as it pertains to this conflict for comparison between ourselves (not Nato) and Russia.  There a few startling differences that I think are important.  There are a couple of important things to consider:

    1.  The fiscal 2023 budget for the US, based on the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act is $816.7 billion dollars.  

    2.  The russian buget (which is estimated because official figures are not readily public domain) is approximately $84 billion (which is likely generous).

    3.  Maintenance/operation of a single US aircraft carrier is approximately $2.5 billion(it wasn't clear to me if this is just for the carrier or the carrier group).  We have 10 of these which is approximately $22.5 billion annually, or nearly 3% of the total budget.  russia has one carrier, (that is in dry dock and catches on fire (a lot)) but if it were to be operating on nearly the same plane as ours would represent 3% of their total defense budget for just a single carrier on par with ours.  

    4.  This got me curious about nuclear arsenal maintenance costs.  Our estimate costs to for this is approximately $60 billion annually (see CBO link below)

    If you were to assume that the Russian stockpile is more or less the same size as ours it stands to reason that maintenance cost would realistically be in the same ball park.  Now we know corruption is rampant in the russian military, but these numbers indicate there is no reason to believe that their stockpile is actually maintained or anywhere even close operational.  Essentially $60 billion to them would represent roughly 75% of their entire military budget, and that presumes no one is stealing.  I have every reason to believe that they do have some nuclear capability and deterrent, but that stockpile is bullshit.  I'd be willing to bet that well less than 10% of their total stockpile is actually operational or even capable of being operational.  The true number (and this is just me guessing) somewhere between 1 to 3% of their reported arsenal.  That is quite literally the maximum I can see them even being able to afford. I honestly believe this realistic.

     

    https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57240#:~:text=If carried out%2C the plans,billion a year%2C CBO estimates.

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 3
  5. In regard to this Hersh guy and his bullshit, if we had wanted to blow this up, and do it secretly, we would never use surface vessels.  As it turns out, we have these things called submarines, and they are very quiet.  We also have some guys that work both in them and outside of them, and they are good at what they do.  What a bunch of idiotic nonsense.  

    • Hook 'Em 5
  6. In regard to mines, I have robots that clean my pool, vacuum my house, and I know they exist to cut the lawn at night (yes I am lazy, and yes spending a couple grand to never cut the lawn again is enticing to me).   Can someone explain to me why the good folks at roomba, or some other robot company can't mass produce GPS robots to sweep any area for mines without putting human lives at risk?  

  7. I read an article the other day, and for the life of me I can't find the link (my apologies), but it was very interesting in regard to russian military aviation.  Basically, the russian's never designed their air force to be deep strike capable.  They were designed with the idea in mind that they were for ground support, with mobile air defense near the ground forces.  In essence, they were always looked at from a designer standpoint of being ground complimentary because of the war they anticipated using these in, which of course dates back to Soviet tactics and fears of a ground conflict/invasion from the west.  This would explain their complete lack of an ability to establish air superiority in the early days, and as Ukraine has more and more air defense come online, they are effectively sidelined beyond the current lines.  Further, their pilots are trained to operate in this environment, not in any deep strike sort of manner.  

    Another big obvious difference is that we have special design planes for certain types of missions.  Because the Soviets/russians couldn't afford to pay for many different types of military craft, they did the cheap thing, which is to make everything multi-purpose.  The phrase "jack of all trades, master of none" certainly seems to apply.  So while their planes are largely well built, general machines, they aren't mission specific, save general ground support.  

    Because of all this, even if their intel was good (it's shit), they can't put air behind lines in an attempt to cut supply (or at least do it an any effective manner), hence the ground and pound tactics.  Save the drones, this is quiet literally their only option given their capabilities.  

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
    • Drool 1
  8. 26 minutes ago, utee94 said:

    I'm in favor-- how can we get Valentine's Day banned in the US?

    If we must replace it by celebrating Babar's birthday, I'm cool with that.  I used to read ALL of that little elephant's stories.

     

     

    Fuck you, us married guys gotta score some.

     

     

     

    Eh, who am I kidding, I'm married.  Hope springs eternal.  

    • Haha 1
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  9. 12 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    Convicts may not mean much to Russia (great way too save on incarcerating them), but they are using up supplies and vehicles that the Russian military would probably rather have in the coming months, and whatever they may think of the convicts, those convicts could have been used in the coming months as well, even if just for cannon fodder.

    If you actually thought the Russian military could take a chunk of Ukraine (up to the Dnipro or whatever), and the gypsum mine would be your reward, it could be very profitable, similar to how Wagner has taken over certain areas in Africa for their natural resources.  Oligarchs have gotta get paid.

    I suppose it speaks more to the problematic nature of having almost warlord control of parts of a military.  What you really have is a warlord with their own objectives, with seemingly little to no interest in the larger conflict.  Its good in a sense for the Ukrainians because rather than looking at the larger conflict, they are wasting resources on a  massive level.  This of course is incredibly stupid, when one considers that the conflict itself is still highly in doubt.  As one Ukrainian famously stated earlier, "thank god they are so fucking stupid."  

    • Hook 'Em 6
    • Like 1
  10. 26 minutes ago, statsman said:

    Bakhmut will fall. What does it mean? Sometimes it’s useful to just list objective facts and see where that leads-

    1. The active battle for Bakhmut, a town that once had a population of 70,000, has been raging since early August. We are going on seven months. 
    2. Wagner has been the bulk of the Russian forces. They are on the offensive. Regular Ukrainian troops are defending. 
    3. The fighting has been brutal. Wagner has used tactics that expend a lot of lives, tens of thousands. There is real time data to support that. Ukraine, fighting defensively, has lost thousands. 
    4. Russia doesn’t give a shit about Wagner KIA. They are convicts and foreign mercs. They figure not at all in the Kremlin calculations. 
    5. Bakhmut is of questionable strategic importance, to either side. Sure, Russia can stage the next offensive from there, Ukraine can advance and attack supply chains, yada yada. If Bakhmut was really in a truly significant location, a nexus for travel and commerce, it would have been bigger than Longview. 

    I suspect that both sides are using the battle to occupy the other side while they prepare for the next phase. Russia is trying to mobilize more forces and get its shit together in a way it wasn’t before, for a new and more effective offensive. Ukraine is trying to train up some fresh troops and integrate some new weapons as fast as they can. In other words- Bakhmut is the second and third quarter. When it falls, the fourth quarter to decide this war begins. We really need to get Ukraine what it needs. 

    Everything I've read indicates that Bakhmut isn't an area where they can stage a new offensive.  It sits in a swell and is covered with higher ground artillery fire from several miles away.  Without taking both Bakhmut and that high ground, Bakhmut itself therefore couldn't really be used as a staging area for anything; which makes this all the more bizarre.  From Ukraine's perspective, making them bleed with limited losses would be ideal, I suppose it at least keeps the russians occupied in a limited area.  For russia, it seems to make little to no sense to fight there and bog down.  For wagner, its long been rumored to be about the gypsum mine and control of that.  

    If that is true, its the craziest use of loss of life I can think of.  All to control a gypsum mine.  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  11. 17 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

     

     

     

     

     

    Well this could be a problem, although I am sure western intelligence has been well aware of this for some time.  Short of just paying all their bills via western funds (not a great idea I admit), but hell it is Moldova, it can't be that much.  Population 2.7 million, so roughly 900k households, assuming even $500 per household would be $450 million.  Lend/lease type offer?  Squashing a putin lead coup for a bit of money seems like an easy win for us, although it comes off as a blackmail deal.  

    Or could intelligence just swoop in and arrest the "protesters" as foreigner actors of espionage?  Admittedly, I know nothing about Moldovan law. 

  12. 10 minutes ago, Caver60 said:

    https://podcast.silverado.org/episodes/interview-this-american-spent-10-months-fighting-in-ukraine

    Posted by Schulz2.0 above. This is a pretty decent listen. The portion towards the end about the difficulty in getting medical treatment for Americans wounded in Ukraine is infuriating.

    I can understand (but not agree with) withholding certain weapon systems from Ukraine for fear of escalation. I can’t understand not treating vets who are wounded in Ukraine. There’s no way that leads to any sort of escalation. It’s bullshit red tape and anyone responsible is the very worst sort of pussy.

    You must be unfamiliar with the VA, its hard to get care state side as a combat veteran.  

    • Haha 1
    • Rage+1 5
  13. 2 minutes ago, Gengs1 said:

    All this dumb talk about escalations, so Russia can do anything they want and if USA supports Ukraine they are escalating the situation, who comes up with this dumb shit. So what; what Russian gonna do about it?

    That is a fair point and one I agree with.  The part that's beyond fucking stupid is that we sent them GPS precision guided munitions.  Last I checked, Ukraine doesn't have their own satellite constellation.  How the fuck did you think they were using these?  

     

    • Hook 'Em 3
×
×
  • Create New...