Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Cowards. The Ukrainians are laying down their lives in defense of Europe and they can't even get this, but a genocidal maniac who would sacrifice millions to remain in power gets all the aid he wants.
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.
THAAD could launch from neighboring countries and protect most of Western Ukraine.
"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?
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?
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.
Ukraine has recieved several anti missile systems from the US, but do not man them as in Isreal. I suppose if US Troops were killed by the Russians in an attack, then all kinds of escalating shit would happen.
What kind if escalation does putin have though? Hes bombing civilians, schools and hospitals. And the nUcLeAr saber rattling has been used so much the saber is all dull.
But escalating with Iran is fine I guess?
Iran would be destroyed by US Airpower. They know it.
And then what? Iraq got destroyed by air power, Afghanistan got destroyed by air power. Now both countries are hot beds of terrorism and instability.
Yeah, but the Taliban or Iraq are not able to mass manufacture drones to sell to Russia.
No, Afghanistan was not about air power. Iran has a lot to lose and could lose it very easily.
WE. JUST. SPENT. 20. YEARS. FIGHTING. IN. A. COUNTRY. WITH. NO. AIR. FORCE.
Fuck you very much. If you want this so badly then you go invade Iran and stay there until "the job is done".
And they're not a nuclear power. Like, pointedly not. We made real sure of that.