Its been over 3 years now...
Posted on 06/02/2025 1:11:52 PM PDT by marcusmaximus
The Ukrainian attack on the Russian airfields has been seen as a game-changer in warfare.
-snip-
Some commentators believe that the Ukrainian success lifts the curtain on what comes next in terms of threats to the West. Kyiv has shown what is possible, and now, countries like China or even terrorist groups might try to replicate this in attacks on the US military or on other countries. The fact is that this threat was already known, and Western countries have been investing heavily in new counter-UAS technologies. However, the challenge is that there are too many places to defend.
Because the counter-drone tech, whether it be jammers, lasers, or even rifles and missiles, has a limited range, means every place that needs to be defended requires multiple layers of anti-drone defenses. Even if they have some defenses, there are types of drones that may avoid them. This is not an easy threat to overcome, and it is growing exponentially.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.jpost.com ...
They nor we can keep our nuclear strategic bombers under cover it’s part of the SALT treaty Reagan administration signed.
So no they couldn’t keep those types of bombers under cover. Specifically the TU95 TU160 both have to be kept in then open where our satellites can count them. It is a big deal when you start hitting strategic air power. Russia will now tell anyone no on any new arms treaty.
They are moving strategic mobile rocket forces too their launch zones. I would expect a big response up too a tactical nuke just to prove a point at this point. Their doctrine is that tactical nukes are not a off limits weapon not in the least they have shown restraint in not using them already.
“countries like China or even terrorist groups might try to replicate this in attacks on the US military or on other countries”
Good point. I hope our government is paying attention.
Its been over 3 years now...
“ SALT and START treaty requirements are that the delivery vehicles must be visible at all times. So sealing them up in hangars isn’t a solution.”
No, they do not. Only vehicles scheduled for destruction. There is no provision regarding storage or visibility.
Moreover, Russia withdrew from SALT in 2023. It’s no longer binding in any way..
Can anyone here think of another weapon or method of warfare that has profoundly changed he way we think about defenses and offenses more than the drone now, besides nukes?
Maybe the horse and then the internal combustion engine? Gunpowder?
How come we don’t see germ warfare used much? I would think it would be a natural poor-mans weapon of somewhat mass destruction? Or HAS it been used modestly and we just didn’t realize it for what it was? Was science capable of creating and releasing the Spanish Flu in 1918?
You’re so cutes standing on the sidelines in your little cheerleader uniform waving pom-pons for WWIII.
Russia could crush Ukraine like a cockroach.
Do not mistake restraint for weakness.
Do not mistake weakness for restraint.
We do not know for certain which it is.. or it may be neither but incompetence, instead.
I do not see evidence of restraint, other than the restraint not to use nuclear weapons.
Hardening storage of military planes is easy.
Airliners, not so much.
And you can avoid jamming by use of a trailing fibre optic cable than can be miles long. The Russians and Ukes are doing this already.
Their doctrine is that tactical nukes are not a off limits weapon not in the least they have shown restraint in not using them already.
Ukraine has had three plus years and the highest level of incentives to procure their own nukes.
Both France and the UK have their own nukes.
The bombers were kept outside in compliance with the SALT treaty - if they put them inside it would be a violation (our are kept outside and visible also).
This protocol clearly states the terms for display of nuclear capable bombers UPON REQUEST:
[Page 29, START Treaty Article XII – “TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON THE REDUCTION AND LIMITATION OF STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE ARMS]
Scroll to page 29 Article XII para 1c
The chopped up B-52s, for example, at DM are required to be visible for a number of months so that their destruction can be verified and that can be taken from the total count of nuclear capable B-52H models.
18 months of planning for this?
Big Serge ☦️🇺🇸🇷🇺
@witte_sergei
Actual count is 3 big bears destroyed and a couple more damaged, which is actually a strong result for Ukraine. Unfortunately these types of accounts lack perspective on what constitutes a successful strike and have to pretend that half the fleet was wiped out.
11:30 AM · Jun 1, 2025
Russia has held back.
START does not explicitly mandate that bombers be stored in the open. Bombers can be stored in hangars or other facilities, provided they are accessible for inspection as per the treaty’s verification protocols.
Nothing in START requires active bombers be stored in the open.
Deactivated bombers must be openly stored.
Just for example, B2 and B21 bombers actually are all stored in hangers except when flying because their stealth capability degrades with exposure.
They just have to be available for inspection. That just means they get rolled out when needed.
Correct.
Putin is closer to giving the order to crush Kiev like a grape.
That is why I highlighted UPON REQUEST in bold in my response. Basically the inspectors can specify a count and a method for that count at any one base for verification.
OBTW, I escorted State Department and Russian inspectors on the initial START inspections. For the record, our guys were technical idiots. The Russians were more interested in going to Wal Mart.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.