Biden threatens Putin " If . . . . no longer a Nord Stream 2 . . bring end to it"

[Rob Plant + 2,616]

1 hour ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

This is hardly standard procedure. Team of at least two soldiers per one Javelin is.

So a company (4 platoons) is between 130-150 soldiers, so approx 70 javelins.

Sounds plenty to me.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

23 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

So a company (4 platoons) is between 130-150 soldiers, so approx 70 javelins.

Sounds plenty to me.

I think it is classified a squad support weapon, so one per squad. You constantly try to lose everything else the soldiers have to carry and just load up on Javelins. I am sure there is some kind of mechanized solution if you want to do that.

[Starschy + 211]

5 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

This argument seems to hold for just about any modern infantry anti-tank weapon, including those Ukraine makes domestically. Yet, there are still tanks being made, including in the US itself. I wonder why?

One of the West misconception is that Tanks would be involved. Chances are higher for TOS1A and Uragan Systems. Both have heavy and intense firepower and clean up in a 400 by 400 m roughly  a few Soccer fields everything down. They shoot 16 rockets in 20 Seconds. Range is 4 km up to 90 km most in a 25 km range.

[bobo88 + 58]

6 hours ago, notsonice said:

 

If I had to pick being in a Russian tank or Holding a Javelin launcher at 2000 meters apart. I would take the Javelin. Can the guy in the tank see the guy holding the Javelin? The guy holding the Javelin launcher can definitely see the tank 24/7. Just remember we can crank out a hell of alot more missiles in a short period of time and get them to any front line in the Ukraine...how long to make a tank???? The US will donate as many Javelin missiles as needed to wipe out every tank or armored vehicle that crosses into the Ukraine. 

It looks like Bidens go to guy for National Security issues (Afghanistan Withdrawal, Ukraine, etc) is National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan.

I hear people like Austin and Milley sit in as part of the Security Council but when all is said and done when Joe is alone with Jake he does what Jake tells him.

Jake is a long time CIA Operations Manager and Analyst International asecurity. He ended up in Hillary's 2016 campaign and according to Federal Prosecuted Durham provided the Russian hoax info to the FBI Justice Department.

Edited February 17, 2022 by bobo88

[Boat + 1,315]

14 hours ago, surrept33 said:

Biden has made it immensely clear that America isn't going to get into a shooting war over Ukraine, so not sure what Grenell is getting that from.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/10/us/biden-ukraine.html

 

It's important that Biden show strength for two reasons:

1. to support NATO. Without NATO and the support of the US military, It's certainly clear that Putin can have free reign in whatever he wants in eastern and/or central Europe 

2. because Xi is watching how much the US is willing to support our allies. 

 

I would guess giving into Putin would get Dems voted out. We don’t pay 700 billion a year for any less.

[Boat + 1,315]

2 hours ago, bobo88 said:

It looks like Bidens go to guy for National Security issues (Afghanistan Withdrawal, Ukraine, etc) is National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan.

I hear people like Austin and Milley sit in as part of the Security Council but when all is said and done when Joe is alone with Jake he does what Jake tells him.

Jake is a long time CIA Operations Manager and Analyst International asecurity. He ended up in Hillary's 2016 campaign and according to Federal Prosecuted Durham provided the Russian hoax info to the FBI Justice Department.

Could you show us the list of sanctions. Arrests and deported Russians please. Lol 

[Boat + 1,315]

18 hours ago, bobo88 said:

Why Does Biden talk up war.  Not diplomacy.

This is some testimony from todays House hearing:

The United States is being "aggressively alarmist" about the tension between Russia and Ukraine and has "shoved aside diplomacy" in favor of talking of war, Ric Grenell, former acting director of national intelligence, said in testimony during a virtual hearing by the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on National Security on Wednesday. 

"We are rejecting the tools that the United States has in terms of sanctions," Grenell, who told the lawmakers in a summation of his written testimony. 

But Grenell said he can't think of something "more callous than to wait for bloodshed to be put on the TV screens before we make a move on diplomacy and Nord Stream 2.

He added that the Germans "undermined us when it comes to Nord Stream 2."

Grenell also called it "shameful" for Washington to be raced toward military options rather than using diplomatic tools that would cripple Putin and deny him the money he needs to go on the offensive, and not to discuss the pipeline. 

"It is typical of Washington and all of the pundits that race to talk about war instead of utilizing diplomacy, sanctions, and the tools of the U.S. government," said Grenell. "They are incredibly important, and yet official Washington is talking about troops, and build-up, and literally pushing aside the diplomatic response. I find it to be shameful."

The aggressive talk is not based on verified intelligence, he added. 

"Lastly, let me just say that official Washington is also wrong when it comes to NATO unity," said Grenell. "The Germans are undermining NATO. Many NATO members are not paying their fair share and obligations."

He also said he agrees with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelinskyy's comments that U.S. policy is not deterring Putin and that it is "ruining our ally Ukraine's economy."

Biden is reckless.

Is his aggressive behavior a result of his mental state. 

More like his corn pop stories or calling a college girl a " lying fog faced pony soldier" during the campaign.  More of his agry outbursts during press conferences.  

This guy is dangerous. 

France's Macron and Germany's Scholz are talking to Putin on thier on.

Biden's behavior is strange .  What President would announce he was flying Nuclear capable bombers to the region.

Zelenskyy believes Biden's war mongering has killed his economy and blown any chance for diplomatic solution.

NATO is far from united.  NATO no longer faces to the west as Grennrll stated

Hopefully Macron or Scholz can reason with Putin before crazy Joe gets us in WWIII.

Putin was not the political mastermind and Pops Biden is shoving his face in it.

[bobo88 + 58]

26 minutes ago, Boat said:

I would guess giving into Putin would get Dems voted out. We don’t pay 700 billion a year for any less.

God forbid the Dems lose a few votes.  This whole escalation by Biden is a "way the dog" act in my opinion.  

So what if Joe gets U.S. in WW lll .  He can cancel the '22 midterms while counties hunrl nukes at each other.

Biden is dangerous.  

Why do you  advertise or even send Nuke Bombers to Britain.  Where are Milley and Austin.  

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

21 minutes ago, bobo88 said:

God forbid the Dems lose a few votes.  This whole escalation by Biden is a "way the dog" act in my opinion.  

So what if Joe gets U.S. in WW lll .  He can cancel the '22 midterms while counties hunrl nukes at each other.

Biden is dangerous.  

Why do you  advertise or even send Nuke Bombers to Britain.  Where are Milley and Austin.  

All American bombers are nuke capable. But no one with a brain thinks we would use 60 year old B52s as a nuclear deterrent. What they are good at is being massive conventional bomb trucks. The B52s go in last. If Joe were truly trying to send a threatening message he would have sent B2s.

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[nsdp + 449]

19 hours ago, bobo88 said:

Why Does Biden talk up war.  Not diplomacy.

This is some testimony from todays House hearing:

The United States is being "aggressively alarmist" about the tension between Russia and Ukraine and has "shoved aside diplomacy" in favor of talking of war, Ric Grenell, former acting director of national intelligence, said in testimony during a virtual hearing by the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on National Security on Wednesday. 

"We are rejecting the tools that the United States has in terms of sanctions," Grenell, who told the lawmakers in a summation of his written testimony. 

But Grenell said he can't think of something "more callous than to wait for bloodshed to be put on the TV screens before we make a move on diplomacy and Nord Stream 2.

He added that the Germans "undermined us when it comes to Nord Stream 2."

Grenell also called it "shameful" for Washington to be raced toward military options rather than using diplomatic tools that would cripple Putin and deny him the money he needs to go on the offensive, and not to discuss the pipeline. 

"It is typical of Washington and all of the pundits that race to talk about war instead of utilizing diplomacy, sanctions, and the tools of the U.S. government," said Grenell. "They are incredibly important, and yet official Washington is talking about troops, and build-up, and literally pushing aside the diplomatic response. I find it to be shameful."

The aggressive talk is not based on verified intelligence, he added. 

"Lastly, let me just say that official Washington is also wrong when it comes to NATO unity," said Grenell. "The Germans are undermining NATO. Many NATO members are not paying their fair share and obligations."

He also said he agrees with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelinskyy's comments that U.S. policy is not deterring Putin and that it is "ruining our ally Ukraine's economy."

Biden is reckless.

Is his aggressive behavior a result of his mental state. 

More like his corn pop stories or calling a college girl a " lying fog faced pony soldier" during the campaign.  More of his agry outbursts during press conferences.  

This guy is dangerous. 

France's Macron and Germany's Scholz are talking to Putin on thier on.

Biden's behavior is strange .  What President would announce he was flying Nuclear capable bombers to the region.

Zelenskyy believes Biden's war mongering has killed his economy and blown any chance for diplomatic solution.

NATO is far from united.  NATO no longer faces to the west as Grennrll stated

Hopefully Macron or Scholz can reason with Putin before crazy Joe gets us in WWIII.

He is replying to PUT-PUT in the same language PUT-Put uses and under standards.   It is also good cop bad cop routine.  If the Frech or Brits had talked to Hitler this way in 1936 when entering the Rheinland no WWI in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_cop/bad_cop this is old as the first talkies in Hollywood. 

If you don't know this movie strategy why are you posting.   The rest you posted is for fools.

Edited February 17, 2022 by nsdp
spelling

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

All American bombers are nuke capable. But no one with a brain thinks we would use 60 year old B52s as a nuclear deterrent. What they are good at is being massive conventional bomb trucks. The B52s go in last. If Joe were truly trying to send a threatening message he would have sent B2s.

 

Actually, the B-52s carry standoff weapons. B-2s don't, just gravity bombs.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 2/16/2022 at 9:56 PM, nsdp said:

No Joe just put the finishing touches on one of the Five Eyes Defense plans. Is Put=Put ready  for the 78 B-2's that come from Alaska.  Or did he forget to cover his ass. Each B-52 has 16 missiles that don't require entry into Russian airspace. Yamal will look like Kuwait in 1991.   Russia have 1458SAM -400's   launch ready for the northern from attack. We still have 20 B-2's and 60 plus B-1's  with 20 missiles to clean up anything missed. 

Would you check the distance between Alaska and Yamal first? Russian supersonic bombers will be there first. Actually got standoff weapons which cover this whole distance, too. Unlike you. All of which remains a theory, because you've got but a single suitable airstrip in all of Alaska.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

28 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Actually, the B-52s carry standoff weapons. B-2s don't, just gravity bombs.

Putin knows nuclear bombs aren't relevant. But B-2s in contested airspace will do a number on troop columns, armored vehicles, command and control, etc.

[bobo88 + 58]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

All American bombers are nuke capable. But no one with a brain thinks we would use 60 year old B52s as a nuclear deterrent. What they are good at is being massive conventional bomb trucks. The B52s go in last. If Joe were truly trying to send a threatening message he would have sent B2s.

 

The Biden administration put out a release that they were sending 4 nuclear bombers to Britain as reinforcement.  Putin actually responded stating Russia's nuclear arenal was ready for any threat.

 

No rational or sane person would think the U.S. would actual use nukes over a skimish about a couple of oblasts of ethnic Russian residence.

BUT NO RATIONAL AND SANE PRESIDENT  WITH A FUNCTIONING BRAIN THAT WASN'T COGNITIVLEY IMPAIRED WOULD MAKE SUCH AN IMPLIED THREAT AGAINST A COUNTRY THAT HAS THE LARGEST NUKE INVENTORY IN THE WORLD.

 

Biden often doesn't even know what day of the week it is, what state he's in, etc  etc.  Joe at times still thinks he is a Senator not President.

BIDEN IS DANGROUS.

IF Joe misses his nap time he could get confused and start a war with Russia.

Biden has this Machisomo ComplexComplex

We saw it during the campaign . The angry outbursts and physically challenging voters

* Tells Cornpop story challenging him with chain

* Tells NH college girl ,"You're a lying dog face pony soldier."

* Tells Iowa voter "you're a damn liar"

* Tells NH voter (1) you're a damn liar (2) challenges to pushup contest.  (3) get your words straight jack (4)  you're to old to vote for me.

One thing to say thesstupid things to voters. It's reckless to challenge and threaten a world leader that has nukes.  This skirmish would be settled by now if not for Joe making it impossible for Putin to settle without losing face in front of the entire world.

BIDEN IS DANGEROUS.

Edited February 18, 2022 by bobo88

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Putin knows nuclear bombs aren't relevant. But B-2s in contested airspace will do a number on troop columns, armored vehicles, command and control, etc.

You better be sure it is really invisible, though.

Low frequency early warning radar can see it well enough.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Andrei Moutchkine said:

You better be sure it is really invisible, though.

Low frequency early warning radar can see it well enough.

Maybe, but not targeting or aircraft radar. So yes it is invisible at night.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

10 minutes ago, bobo88 said:

The Biden administration put out a release that they were sending 4 nuclear bombers to Britain as reinforcement. 

Do you have a link for that claim?

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

18 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Maybe, but not targeting or aircraft radar. So yes it is invisible at night.

Debatable. Are you saying that naval Aegis cannot target? It uses the S-Band. So does the AWACS and its Russian equivalent, the A-50/A-100.

An early detection would cause them to send fast interceptors to investigate closer.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

4 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Debatable. Are you saying that naval Aegis cannot target? It uses the S-Band. So does the AWACS and its Russian equivalent, the A-50/A-100.

An early detection would cause them to send fast interceptors to investigate closer.

And what would the fast interceptors do when they got there? Their radar can't see them and at night neither can their eyeballs. Russia does not have any radar targeting systems that work on the B-2.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

24 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

And what would the fast interceptors do when they got there? Their radar can't see them and at night neither can their eyeballs. Russia does not have any radar targeting systems that work on the B-2.

Regular aviation X-Band does work on stealth planes, just from a strongly reduced range. Stealth does not provide complete invisibility, like you seem to think. This is without getting into any advanced radar tech, which Russia does have.

Edited February 17, 2022 by Andrei Moutchkine

[El Gato + 251]

3 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

All American bombers are nuke capable. But no one with a brain thinks we would use 60 year old B52s as a nuclear deterrent. What they are good at is being massive conventional bomb trucks. The B52s go in last. If Joe were truly trying to send a threatening message he would have sent B2s.

 

 That's a big negative. NOT all aircraft are CERTIFIED to carry nuclear weapons.

The F-35 (all 3 models) are NOT certified yet. The A started certification in November. Only F-15E and F-16 C/D are Certified for tactical Air Force use, The B-52 is Certified only for Long range nuclear tipped Cruise missles and NOT nuclear gravity bombs. The F-22 is not certified. and the  B-2 is Certified for everything. Only the F-18E/F and AV8 B are certified in the US Navy and Marine Corps. Almost forgot, the B-1 is no longer certified.

Edited February 18, 2022 by El Gato

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Regular aviation X-Band does work on stealth planes, just from a strongly reduced range. Stealth does not provide complete invisibility like you seem to think. This is without getting into any advanced radar tech, which Russia does have.

I know stealth does not provide complete invisibility but you seem to think that it is easy to find and target a B-2. Then you have to think about his F-22 buddies. How is that Russian stealth plane going?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

3 minutes ago, El Gato said:

 That's a big negative. NOT all aircraft are CERTIFIED to carry nuclear weapons.

The F-35 (all 3 models) are NOT certified yet. The A started certification in November. Only F-15E and F-16 C/D are Certified for tactical Air Force use, The B-52 is Certified only for Long range nuclear tipped Cruise missles and NOT nuclear gravity bombs. The F-22 is not certified. and the  B-2 is Certified for everything. Only the F-18E/F and AV8 B are certified in the US Navy and Marine Corps

I said all bombers, you know, the planes that start with a B. All US bombers are capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

[El Gato + 251]

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I said all bombers, you know, the planes that start with a B. All US bombers are capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

No, they all can't. the B-1 is stripped out of the electronics

[El Gato + 251]

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I know stealth does not provide complete invisibility but you seem to think that it is easy to find and target a B-2. Then you have to think about his F-22 buddies. How is that Russian stealth plane going?

IRST (infrared Search and Track) systems, that aircraft have had in one form or another since the 60's. New aircraft have 360 degree IRST and search at long ranges. Better than Radar, as the opponent has no clue you are tracking them if you find them.