What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Another $12B to Ukraine…what is with this constant supply of money and weapons to Ukraine?

Rigby5

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
25,695
Reaction score
8,247
Points
465
Location
New Mexico
So you didn't say, "And no, almost half of the Ukraine is ethnic Russian" in post #150?

Yeah, you did, you lying sack of shit!

Yes of course I said ALMOST half the Ukraine is ethnic Russian.
But you said that I said ALL of the "Ukraine being ethnic Russian".

The eastern half of the Ukraine is mostly ethnic Russian, and the western have is mostly ethnic Polish.
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
53,294
Reaction score
11,967
Points
2,070
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
That makes no sense, because North Korea always had nuclear reactors, and could have made nuclear weapons at any time. Why then did North Korea wait until after Bush attack Iraq, to create nuclear weapons?
We attacked Iraq in 2003. NK's first nuclear test wasn't until 2006.
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
53,294
Reaction score
11,967
Points
2,070
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
Yes of course I said ALMOST half the Ukraine is ethnic Russian.
But you said that I said ALL of the "Ukraine being ethnic Russian".

The eastern half of the Ukraine is mostly ethnic Russian, and the western have is mostly ethnic Polish.
Bullshit! Read my fucking link you stupid cocksucker!
 

Rigby5

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
25,695
Reaction score
8,247
Points
465
Location
New Mexico
No, they cannot.

The GLCM had a range of 2,500 km and could reach speeds of approximately 800 kph. The missile was 6.4 m in length, 0.52 m in body diameter, and 1,470 kg in launch weight. The Gryphon carried a single W-84 10 to 50 kT nuclear warhead. The missile utilized inertial navigation and TERCOM. The United States deployed 322 missiles aboard 95 TEL vehicles. However, after the INF Treaty was signed and ratified, the system was completely destroyed by 1991 in accordance with the treaty provisions.

Wrong.
{...
The BGM/UGM-109 Tomahawk submarine-launched cruise missile is capable of carrying nuclear warheads,
...}

Now do you want to explain the significance of your paragraphs on the Gryphon?
Clearly the US backed out of that treaty in 2019.
 

Rigby5

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
25,695
Reaction score
8,247
Points
465
Location
New Mexico
Wrong you stupid jackass

Having a reactor does not equal the ability to make a nuke at any time it tyakes trmendous time and resources to create the right TYPE of reactor.

Wrong.
Once you have fissile material, then all it takes is enrichment, which means centrifuges.
 

Rigby5

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
25,695
Reaction score
8,247
Points
465
Location
New Mexico
No, they do NOT! I provided a link saying the ground launch variant was retired in 1991. Can you simply not read?

And clearly any missile that can be launched from a ship or plane, can also be ground launched.
Ground launched is easier.
 

SweetSue92

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
23,030
Reaction score
16,690
Points
2,415
Location
USA

Rigby5

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
25,695
Reaction score
8,247
Points
465
Location
New Mexico
The SDI ground based interceptor was called ERINT for Extended Range Interceptor. When the project was cancelled, the ERINT was later chosen as the MIM-104 Patriot (Patriot Advanced Capability-3,PAC-3) missile.

These were hit-to-kill weapons and thus, non-nuclear.

Why are you so fucking wrong about everything?

And are you claiming they were not capable of carrying nuclear warheads?
Are you claiming they were to defend against Iranian attacks?
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
53,294
Reaction score
11,967
Points
2,070
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
Wrong.
{...
The BGM/UGM-109 Tomahawk submarine-launched cruise missile is capable of carrying nuclear warheads,
...}

Now do you want to explain the significance of your paragraphs on the Gryphon?
Clearly the US backed out of that treaty in 2019.
  • RGM/UGM-109E Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM-E Block IV) – improved version of the TLAM-C.
BGM-109C Tomahawk Land Attack Missile – Conventional (TLAM-C) with a unitary warhead.

From YOUR link:
The BGM/UGM-109 Tomahawk submarine-launched cruise missile is capable of carrying nuclear warheads,
but all nuclear warheads were removed.

Wrong again penis breath!

As to the ground launched version of the Tomahawk, where is your proof that anything has been used to replace it? Withdrawing from a treaty does not mean we go out and put a 30 odd year old weapons system back in the inventory, dumbass!


I swear, my border collie can read better than you!
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
53,294
Reaction score
11,967
Points
2,070
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
And are you claiming they were not capable of carrying nuclear warheads?
Are you claiming they were to defend against Iranian attacks?
They were hit-to-kill missiles, so no, they did not have nuclear warheads.

The stated purpose was to defend Europe from nuclear missiles launched from the Middle East.
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
53,294
Reaction score
11,967
Points
2,070
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
And clearly any missile that can be launched from a ship or plane, can also be ground launched.
Ground launched is easier.
Oh, you have reached a new level of stupid I see!

How does a ground-launched cruise missile get to speed so that the jet engine can take over propulsion? Do we have big strong Nebraska corn-fed youngsters that can pick it up and throw it like a paper airplane?

Why don't you just shut up?

The only people you are impressing is how you can operate a computer on the internet being as stupid as you are!
 

braalian

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2021
Messages
1,308
Reaction score
1,136
Points
1,938
Location
SD

Rigby5

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
25,695
Reaction score
8,247
Points
465
Location
New Mexico
  • RGM/UGM-109E Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM-E Block IV) – improved version of the TLAM-C.
BGM-109C Tomahawk Land Attack Missile – Conventional (TLAM-C) with a unitary warhead.

From YOUR link:

The BGM/UGM-109 Tomahawk submarine-launched cruise missile is capable of carrying nuclear warheads, but all nuclear warheads were removed.

Wrong again penis breath!

As to the ground launched version of the Tomahawk, where is your proof that anything has been used to replace it? Withdrawing from a treaty does not mean we go out and put a 30 odd year old weapons system back in the inventory, dumbass!


I swear, my border collie can read better than you!

If you read what I posted, it said that the US deliberately withdrew from the treaty because we wanted to develop intermediate range nuclear missiles.
The Tomahawk was specifically mentioned as one not only fitting that description, but that the US Marines purchased 48 Tomahawks right after the treaty withdrawal.
So it is certainly not an obsolete weapon, by any means.
 

Rigby5

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
25,695
Reaction score
8,247
Points
465
Location
New Mexico
They were hit-to-kill missiles, so no, they did not have nuclear warheads.

The stated purpose was to defend Europe from nuclear missiles launched from the Middle East.

First of all, the US has never had any real success with kinetic anti missile systems.
The kinetic Patriot has less than a 50% chance of hitting, and less than a 10% chance of destruction.
Since incoming nukes would be MIRV, there is no way to defend against them without using nuclear warheads in the ABMs.

Second is that it is incredibly irrational for the US to try to defend Poland from Iranian missiles.
They can not defend "Europe" since Europe start a lot further south than Poland.
And there is no one else in the Mideast who could possibly be a threat other than Iran.
And the US has no business installing or at all involved with the defense of Europe.
 

Rigby5

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
25,695
Reaction score
8,247
Points
465
Location
New Mexico
Oh, you have reached a new level of stupid I see!

How does a ground-launched cruise missile get to speed so that the jet engine can take over propulsion? Do we have big strong Nebraska corn-fed youngsters that can pick it up and throw it like a paper airplane?

Why don't you just shut up?

The only people you are impressing is how you can operate a computer on the internet being as stupid as you are!

Tomahawk cruise missiles are often installed on ship, so obviously can easily be launched from land as well.
A logical way would be for the jet engine to start to run on an electrical, solid fuel, or other means of compression.
The Navey obviously has figured out how to do it.
5881934923_3175179584_b.jpg


{...
Each missile is stored and launched from a pressurized canister that protects it during transportation and storage, and also serves as a launch tube.[43] These canisters were racked in Armored Box Launchers (ABL), which were installed on the four reactivated Iowa-class battleships USS Iowa, USS New Jersey, USS Missouri, and USS Wisconsin. The ABLs were also installed on eight Spruance-class destroyers, the four Virginia-class cruisers, and the nuclear cruiser USS Long Beach. These canisters are also in vertical launching systems (VLS) in other surface ships, capsule launch systems (CLS) in the later Los Angeles-class submarine and Virginia-class submarines, and in submarines' torpedo tubes. All ABL equipped ships have been decommissioned.

For submarine-launched missiles (called UGM-109s), after being ejected by gas pressure (vertically via the VLS) or by water impulse (horizontally via the torpedo tube), a solid-fuel booster is ignited to propel the missile and guide it out of the water.[44]

After achieving flight, the missile's wings are unfolded for lift, the airscoop is exposed and the turbofan engine is employed for cruise flight. Over water, the Tomahawk uses inertial guidance or GPS to follow a preset course; once over land, the missile's guidance system is aided by terrain contour matching (TERCOM). Terminal guidance is provided by the Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation (DSMAC) system or GPS, producing a claimed circular error probable of about 10 meters.

The Tomahawk Weapon System consists of the missile, Theater Mission Planning Center (TMPC)/Afloat Planning System, and either the Tomahawk Weapon Control System (on surface ships) or Combat Control System (for submarines).
...}
 

Rigby5

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
25,695
Reaction score
8,247
Points
465
Location
New Mexico
A great way to deescalate the situation would be for Russia to give back the land it stole and stop invading neighboring countries.

Wrong.
The eastern provinces were being badly abused by Kyiv and Kyiv should be punished for it.
Kyiv also has been stealing billions in Russian oil and gas, so needs to be punished for that as well.
And it is a treaty violation that is an act of war to try to join NATO, so the government in Kyiv needs to be replaced for that crime.
The US conducts "regime change" for far less, often.
Like when we illegal bribed General Sisi to take over the elected president of Egypt, Morsi.
 

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
82,740
Reaction score
49,901
Points
2,645
That makes no sense, because North Korea always had nuclear reactors, and could have made nuclear weapons at any time. Why then did North Korea wait until after Bush attack Iraq, to create nuclear weapons?
WTF?

You're right - you make no sense. Your question proves you did not read the information provided by the articles, the links I provided.

NK did NOT wait until Bush attacked Iraq to build their nuclear weapons.

Your comment also proves you know little about NK's acquisition of nuclear material, its nuclear weapons program, how long it takes to develop a nuke, who they partnered with / benefitted from, etc...

NK did not wake up one morning under Bush & decide to start / create a nuke and test it.

READ THE FRIGGIN' ARTICLES - EDUCATE YOURSELF. THAT IS WHY THEY WERE PROVIDED...SO YOU DON'T SHOW YOUR IGNORANCE WITH SUCH COMMENTS.
 

Rigby5

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
25,695
Reaction score
8,247
Points
465
Location
New Mexico
WTF?

You're right - you make no sense. Your question proves you did not read the information provided by the articles, the links I provided.

NK did NOT wait until Bush attacked Iraq to build their nuclear weapons.

Your comment also proves you know little about NK's acquisition of nuclear material, its nuclear weapons program, how long it takes to develop a nuke, who they partnered with / benefitted from, etc...

NK did not wake up one morning under Bush & decide to start / create a nuke and test it.

READ THE FRIGGIN' ARTICLES - EDUCATE YOURSELF. THAT IS WHY THEY WERE PROVIDED...SO YOU DON'T SHOW YOUR IGNORANCE WITH SUCH COMMENTS.

Ok, I went back to read the articles, and they were incredibly vague.
Since they already had nuclear reactors why should it take more than a few years to accumulate enough enriched fissile material for a nuclear weapon?
The US only took a few years to come up with our Fat Man and Little Boy.
Nor can we assume China did not help speed them up.
And until Bush started attacking innocent countries, North Korea may have been willing to hide their nuclear ambitions forever. It was only AFTER Bush illegally attacked Iraq that North Korea felt obligated to ensure everyone knew they had a nuclear deterrent.
 

toobfreak

Tungsten/Glass Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
57,634
Reaction score
47,140
Points
3,615
Location
On The Way Home To Earth
Have I missed the congressional hearings where normally requests for billions sent to finance a war in another country on the other side of the world where we are not even involved fighting in is discussed and justified?

All I've seen listed on TV recently is another J6 hearing on CBS that I doubt anyone watched. Does that mean the media considers J6 more important than us financing a war we cannot justify against a nuclear superpower?
 

đź’˛ Amazon Deals đź’˛

New Topics

Forum List

Top