Originally Posted by
rattman
On the switchblades. its "systems" and each system is a 1 command node and either 6 or 10 drones/munitions
Switch Blades, concur it may well be systems, and it is also as likely to use the term "300" to not disclose the actual number of the devices going into Ukraine. I would think that we are not talking about 300 x "300" systems.... I suspect that smart peeps who get paid to do the maths have taken note of the relative effectiveness of the TB-2 and possibly more interesting homegrown weaponizing of DJI drones with dropped devices. The video of a T-72 launching the turret from a quadcopter drop of an improvised aerial expendable makes a compelling case for every man and his dog (and cats) having access to enough grenades/DJI's, Switchblade systems to take the fight to the
INVADERS. The asymmetric capability of 1 person carrying a backpack full of air-droppable ordnance stacked against another sociopathic dictator and his minions is compelling. It is poetic that Russia suddenly finds itself short of weapon manufacturing capability, noting that Ukraine was a primary center for the supply of military technology and weapon production for Russia.
I would wager that there are more switchblade rounds going in than there are vehicles in the remainder of the Russian army. Either way, the Russians in Donbas will find out soon enough.
The real asymmetric value comes from having the rounds available to be dosed out as desired by the Russian's actions, with the surveillance being conducted by the DJI systems and similar. Yes, anti-drone capability does exist in some limited capacity with some forces around the world, but they are not evident in the field at present, so there is probably a bit of thinking going on in Russia on that score, after all, they have no simple access to the production of capable tech (that was done in the Ukraine, and most required western supplied IC and components...). If Russia spent more time listening to the concerns of the rest of the world, and less time lying to their own people, perhaps they would not be concerned with the historical 9-gateways of invasion that seem to preoccupy President Pukin's cognition. If he started listening to the concerns of his own people, the opposition (
Alexei Anatolievich Navalny...Boris Nemtsov...) instead of murdering them, or those trying to report, (
Anna Stepanovna Politkovskaya...Igor Domnikov,
Sergey Novikov, Iskandar Khatloni, Sergey Ivanov, Adam Tepsurgayev, Eduard Markevich, Natalya Skryl,
Valery Ivanov, Aleksei Sidorov, Dmitry Shvets, Paul Klebnikov, Magomedzagid Varisov..) and sundry "threats to Pukin" (Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev, Ashlan Maskhadov, Abdul-Halim Sadulayev, Arbi Barayev, Ibn Al-khattab, Abu Al-walid, Turpal-Ali Atgeriyev, Salman Raduyev, Ruslan Gelayev,
Magomedzagir Akayev, Khura-Magomed Ramazanov, Umar Israilov, Alexander Litvinenko, The Sergei Skripal / Yulia Sergeevna Skripal Novichok attack... ) and..., Boris Berezovsky, Alexander Perepilichnyy, Gareth Williams, Georgi Markov, the attempt on German Gorbuntsov, Vitaly Churkin, Denis Voronenkov, dioxin attack against Viktor Yushchenko, the poisoning of Petr Verzilov and a whole bunch more. Speaking out against Pukin increases the risk of accidentally hanging yourself in a bathroom, or slipping on a couple of Makarov casings. Probably is an exclusion on most Russian life insurance policies.
Originally Posted by
rattman
There was an agreement that Russian ships would not carry nuclear-tipped missiles in 1992. Also, note there was an agreement Russia wouldn't develop IRBM and they ignored that. If you go to AIS you will see that 2 Jackup barges are now located where the Moskva went down.
Is the 1992 agreement subsequent to START I? If it was START II, that was never ratified, and was not binding. START I of course, was a 15-year term with an option for 5-year extensions, and a proposal to make it an indefinite period, but that was also never ratified. That leaves START I which ceased to have effect on 5th December 2009. Any compliance with START I even when it was in force was under the National Technical Means, NTM, of verification, which the other side was not permitted to interfere with. So START I was as good as the paper that was missing at the toilets in UUEE terminal last time I visited and spent hours in the queue in the vomit green corridor with all the rest of the crews with the misfortune to be experiencing the pleasure of Russian efficiency.
I made a rough estimate of when Pukin would light the touchpaper on a tactical nuke, irrespective of it being upwind of significant Russian population centers, and I don't see any evidence that is off the options menu for this psycho as yet. I think I still have 3 weeks to run for that estimate, the probability is not zero, but thankfully it isn't 1 either. The West and NATO don't have many options to play in that event, except for every single possible permutation on a near-infinite spectrum, but they really boil down to 2; Give in to Russia, the new leaders of the world... Nah, that ain't gonna happen, or to send in immediately UN (really, there is still a UN even while the permanent members of the UN include a psycho) or NATO or allied concerned countries into Ukraine (and Finland, Sweden, as a tripwire force), increase presence in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland etc.... With a declaration of collective defence, what Ukraine needed Obama to do in 2014. before MI-17 etc. Of course, I would expect the next few weeks to prove me wrong, I sure hope so.
PS: My idea of a target asking to be taken out -
There's a bridge over the straights at Kerch that has a span that asks to be dropped, and the great thing is, it's on Ukrainian territory if you disregard the unlawful annexation of Crimea by Pukin. Gonna take a package of Hrim-2's, but eminently worthy of the effort. Add some captors outside of Novorossiysk... make a picnic of it. Pukin seems to be mighty sensitive for a bully when his nose hairs get yanked, "eyes well up 'n everythang".
