Russia Pushs the Boundaries With a Precision Attack.

[alang1216]

We must be realistic about the capabilities of all the superpowers.

Then stop talking about Russia sinking a US aircraft carrier since they don't have that kind of capability, especially since there are no US aircraft carriers in the Black Sea and it would bring all of NATO into a war with Russia.

 

[Donald H]

Then stop talking about Russia sinking a US aircraft carrier since they don't have that kind of capability, especially since there are no US aircraft carriers in the Black Sea and it would bring all of NATO into a war with Russia.

Some actually believe that Russia's missiles could circle the earth twice and then pay America's navy a visit!

Others are confident like you.

 

[alang1216]

Some actually believe that Russia's missiles could circle the earth twice and then pay America's navy a visit!

You pay a Navy BASE a visit. Ballistic missiles are targeted on stationary objects like cities, not on moving targets like a carrier.

Others are confident like you.

Especially those that know their facts.

 

[BackAgain]

GPY.

go pray yourself.

Eat shit and bark at the moon, *****.

Also, try to limit your feeble commentary to the topic.

Russia is the illegal aggressor. A superior military might isn’t “pushing boundaries” nor is it using “precision attacks.” It is merely abusing blunt force superiority.

Go suck Putin’s little red dick somewhere else.

 

[Dayton3]

The war has to remain limited but this could up the ante by America. We all should know that both America and Russia hold a tremendous amount of power in reserve, without having to go nuclear.

I worry that Russia could sink a US aircraft carrier that would take down 5000 Americans with it. This would only happen if America strikes Russia and causes casualties in the thousands, or equal numbers.

ridiculous, even at the height of Soviet military power sinking a U.S. carrier would've been a tall order

 

[Donald H]

ridiculous, even at the height of Soviet military power sinking a U.S. carrier would've been a tall order

Yes, the aircraft carriers were built to suit a time when they could be defended effectively, as were the battleships.

Now, with the latest in technology, it's worth asking the question.

 

[Silver Cat]

How about Ukraine and Russia sign a peace agreement?

Russia wants denazification of Ukraine (which definitely means death sentence for Zelenskiy and his cronies). Ukraine wants Novorussia and Crimea back. Each side's demands are totally unacceptable for another side. Not much place for negotiations, as we can see.

 

[Donald H]

Russia wants denazification of Ukraine (which definitely means death sentence for Zelenskiy and his cronies). Ukraine wants Novorussia and Crimea back. Each side's demands are totally unacceptable for another side. Not much place for negotiations, as we can see.

The Ukraine had already agreed to Russia's terms on making the Ukraine a neutral.

 

[Blaster]

The Ukraine had already agreed to Russia's terms on making the Ukraine a neutral.

Bullshit.

 

[Donald H]

Bullshit.

The two reached a signed agreement in 1997 and were ready to sign a peace agreement in Mar. 22.
The US and UK destroyed the effort and now it's cost the Ukraine a country and millions of citizens.

 

[Donald H]

You pay a Navy BASE a visit. Ballistic missiles are targeted on stationary objects like cities, not on moving targets like a carrier.

You're not up to date with the latest. You should be, even if you believe it's not true.

Air craft carriers were built during the Cold war for the purpose of American aggression, mostly against ME countries. They were never meant for an invasion of Russia or China.

Russia's and China's hypersonic missiles have ballistic missile capability as well as anything a cruise missile can be used for, but much more deadly.

Today's and tomorrow's warfare will be almost entirely economic.

America's proxy war against Russia has failed militarily. And America's economic efforts against Russia are showing no signs of success.

 

[alang1216]

You're not up to date with the latest. You should be, even if you believe it's not true.

I could say the same of you.

Air craft carriers were built during the Cold war for the purpose of American aggression, mostly against ME countries. They were never meant for an invasion of Russia or China.

Your point?

Russia's and China's hypersonic missiles have ballistic missile capability as well as anything a cruise missile can be used for, but much more deadly.

Are they? The US experimented with them and decided they were not effective.

Today's and tomorrow's warfare will be almost entirely economic.

America's proxy war against Russia has failed militarily. And America's economic efforts against Russia are showing no signs of success.

That may be true and the US seems intent on bankrupting itself with its enormous military spending

 

[Donald H]

I could say the same of you.


Your point?


Are they? The US experimented with them and decided they were not effective.


That may be true and the US seems intent on bankrupting itself with its enormous military spending

From the horse's mouth.

Years after Kicking Off, U.S. Hypersonic Programs Still in Development

Years after Kicking Off, U.S. Hypersonic Programs Still in Development

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

 

[luiza]

There's a lot more Russia can do and there's a lot more America can do under the cover of it's Ukraine proxy. We all need to be realistic. For example, a large and devastating missile strike on Moscow.

And for example a sunk US aircraft carrier?

America can hand out as much as is necessary to defeat Russia, but only if Russia cooperates. Under the guise of the Ukraine proxy of course.


The midget will get arms and ammunition enough for what it takes, if America dares to supply it.

And Russia will sink a US air craft carrier in return if America wants to risk it.

We must be realistic.

Barring such extreme measures, Russia will reach a satisfactory win in 24. Not to suggest that either side will stop shooting by then.

We must be realistic about the capabilities of all the superpowers.

And of course the last couple of days have proved my accuracy .
People have got to start realising that public government USeLess is no longer a super power .
If you look at UseLess versus Iran in detail accuracy , I believe USeLess wil lose disastrously , assuming no recourse to nuclear madness .
And I don't think "ordinary" Americans realise how much their country is detested .
And more contentiously , how much it is controlled by Jewish Mafia / Khazeria / Deep State .
But imho .

 

[Donald H]

And of course the last couple of days have proved my accuracy .
People have got to start realising that public government USeLess is no longer a super power .
If you look at UseLess versus Iran in detail accuracy , I believe USeLess wil lose disastrously , assuming no recourse to nuclear madness .
And I don't think "ordinary" Americans realise how much their country is detested .
And more contentiously , how much it is controlled by Jewish Mafia / Khazeria / Deep State .
But imho .

Such questions on America's success with its aircraft carriers, is not being discussed right now.

I think a US strike on Iran, or one of Iran's proxies will raise the question.l

And for that reason the actions of the Zionist regime are being closely monitored by America.

I have to worry about hypersonic technology being passed on to Iran. The possibilities are no longer prohibitive, due to the war agaist Russia setting the bar low.

Not so much on an aircraft carrier; that would be over the top, but a US base. Iran has demonstrated their capability with near misses so close that American soldiers were deafened!

 

[alang1216]

From the horse's mouth.

Years after Kicking Off, U.S. Hypersonic Programs Still in Development

Years after Kicking Off, U.S. Hypersonic Programs Still in Development

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

You mean from the defense industry that would build and profit from them?

Hypersonic Missiles: Overhyped or the Future of Warfare?​

Drawbacks of Speed​

The speed that makes these missiles prominent also negates their capabilities. Anything that travels at least five times the speed of sound needs to either slow down to turn or turn in a radius large enough to avoid damaging the missile.​

​

This drawback also extends to hitting small or moving targets since any minor adjustment can easily be overcompensated for a missile traveling over a mile a second.​

​

When a hypersonic slows down to turn or hit a moving target, it is vulnerable to close-range anti-missile systems like America’s Phalanx CIWS.​

​

Best Use of Hypersonics​

While hypersonic technology has been around for decades, the conflict in Ukraine has brought these weapons to the forefront of expert opinion.​

​

While some challenges are presented by low trajectory missiles traveling at least Mach 5, the chances of success against small or mobile targets show that hypersonics are not the be-all and end-all of future conflicts.​

​

Their best use will likely be against stationary targets of high importance in near-peer conflicts.​

​

Russia’s Zircon has been used in Ukraine, but with a lack of accurate target selection, the battlefield effect has been negligible.​

 

[Donald H]

You mean from the defense industry that would build and profit from them?

​

Yes, that's a good point. The US defense department has a good motive to lie and make up stories.

Let's let the class decide who's lying!

 

[Silver Cat]

The Ukraine had already agreed to Russia's terms on making the Ukraine a neutral.

Actually, no. At least Kievan Junta didn't agree. Anyway there are three Russian demands - denazification, demilitarisation and neutral status. And the first one means at least death sentence for Zelenskiy and all his cronies.

 

[Dayton3]

Actually, no. At least Kievan Junta didn't agree. Anyway there are three Russian demands - denazification, demilitarisation and neutral status. And the first one means at least death sentence for Zelenskiy and all his cronies.'/

/still promoting that fiction I see

 

[alang1216]

Yes, that's a good point. The US defense department has a good motive to lie and make up stories.

Let's let the class decide who's lying!

It appears the liar is you. The link you offered did not go to the US DoD but to an industry, special-interest group.