this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
158 points (94.4% liked)

politics

19091 readers
3437 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
158
US explains why it is not shooting down missiles over Ukraine as it does over Israel. (www.pravda.com.ua)
submitted 1 month ago by TheOne@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/politics@lemmy.world
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 78 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

IDK, this seems like the DoD actually doing their jobs (for once).We've given tons of anti-missile systems to ukraine. Deploying THAAD to a conflict where we can't actively deploy US troops alongside it is a serious intelligence risk, and it doesn't fill a particular role thats missing in Ukraine. Russia hasn't been using ballistic missiles of the size THAAD would even be effective against. Patriot, MANPAD, aerial launched and even hera systems have been extremely effective, and NATO continues to supply those systems for Ukraine.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

THAAD could launch from neighboring countries and protect most of Western Ukraine.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

"Alright, thank you for attending this meeting of the Member States of the NATO Alliance Countries Which Border Ukraine, which of you would like to be the first one to base an active combat emplacement (and 100% viable military target) on their soil? Did I mention it wasn't going to be very effective, and costs $12 Million per missile?"
"..."
"Anyone? "

Look I'm clearly being sarcastic, but out of Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary or Poland, which one is your pick to throw themselves into a meatgrinder war of attrition all while the US is split 50/50 on electing someone who has actively called for the US to back out of NATO?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Don't act like Poland wouldn't volunteer to man it themselves. Lithuania would demand one and tell us not to worry about researching a ground to ground missile conversion for them.

At any rate, I was just answering the technical feasibility. If you want to get political, then why don't we have a 100 guys in Kiev with one of these batteries? We're willing to defend a genocidal regime but not a country literally fighting for it's existence?

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

But neither Poland nor Lithuania... are doing that. And they totally could be doing that. And if we're ignoring the political feasibility of deploying a THAAD, why wouldn't we just put it in Ukraine? Or, hell, why not just send US forces into ukraine, since it's pretty clear we could roflstomp russia in a couple days? A couple carrier groups in the black sea and this conflict would be over comically fast.

Look you make a point, but I'm not sure what you're actually trying to say with it. Do the now years of financial, humanitarian, political and military aid the US has given Ukraine count for nothing? The fact that we're getting our dicks stuck in the middle east again (and chugging so much Israeli Genocide Bathwater we're at risk of succumbing to zionist water toxemia while we do it) has very little to do with the continuing support the US is giving Ukraine. It's still a damn hard battle, but the US has been giving them tools that they are using incredibly effectively. A THAAD system being deployed to Ukraine would be: a serious escalation with russia (who will not be happy with US anti-ballistic missile systems on the border, a point they've made clear for years), an astounding investment of an incredibly expensive and very limited-scope platform that is vulnerable without the supporting military ecosystem, and minimally effective since the kinds of missiles THAAD was designed to counter (realistically just SBMs) are barely being used by russia in this conflict.

There are real, credible reasons why the US has not done this, and I sure was sarcastic at you about your suggestion. I'm sorry about that, I kinda assumed you were a troll. If you're serious about this, you should stop and consider that a war can't be separated from the political realities that surround it, not least because if we could do that wars would be rendered pointless and we'd never have them and raytheon would go out of business.
...
Hang on what am I saying that sounds great, I'm gonna start saying it too. Maybe if we convince enough people it'll actually happen. I mean, it's a better plan than being shitty at random well-meaning-but-off-the-mark-on-some-obscure-details internet commenters on a niche social media website like I'm doing right now.