- Joined
- Apr 28, 2015
- Messages
- 85,685
- Reaction score
- 72,374
- Location
- Third Coast
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
(CNN)Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said publicly for the first time Thursday that the US is providing intelligence to Ukrainian forces to conduct operations in the Donbas region.
Probably helps to level the playing field a bit. Russia has a lot of intelligence capacities. The mention of "near real time" is interesting.US giving intel to Ukraine for operations in Donbas, Defense Secretary says | CNN Politics
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said publicly for the first time Thursday that the US is providing intelligence to Ukrainian forces to conduct operations in the Donbas region.www.cnn.com
--
In general terms, I realized the U.S. was providing intelligence & communications to the Ukrainian Army. But, I still am surprised and amazed at the scope and detail.
Though not in the article, I've seen commentary & analysis claiming the intelligence is not just operational intelligence, but tactical intelligence to the point of real-time pinpointing of targets at the lowest engagement levels! Wow!
--
I'll say it again:
"Boys & Girls, we have us a proxy war!"
I'll also add:
"I think Putin may have bitten off more than he could chew"
Probably helps to level the playing field a bit.
Russia has a lot of intelligence capacities.
The mention of "near real time" is interesting.
I'm sure it already has!
I wouldn't be so sure, to be honest.
And while it's not in the article, it is apparently not just operational intelligence, but tactical, and tactical down to the lowest levels of engagement.
I'm actually wondering if it's possible the weaponry we've given the Ukrains can be guided from afar, say from a command HQ in Poland or elsewhere? That would mean the Ukrainian soldier launches the Javelin or whatever, using the navigation metrics the U.S. provides, and then the U.S. guides it to it's target.
Straight-up, I don't know what the capabilities of military weaponry are. Bur strictly evaluating this from a technological perspective, it should be doable. If I can conceive of it, I wouldn't doubt if the U.S. has done it. I'm fairly certain the technology is doable.
You can’t do that with a javelin or any other manpack missile system in the US military that I am aware of.I'm sure it already has!
I wouldn't be so sure, to be honest.
But, I am sure U.S. intelligence & battle technology is far & away in a league of its own, unequivocally the very best in the world.
And while it's not in the article, it is apparently not just operational intelligence, but tactical, and tactical down to the lowest levels of engagement.
I'm actually wondering if it's possible the weaponry we've given the Ukrains can be guided from afar, say from a command HQ in Poland or elsewhere? That would mean the Ukrainian soldier launches the Javelin or whatever, using the navigation metrics the U.S. provides, and then the U.S. guides it to it's target.
Straight-up, I don't know what the capabilities of military weaponry are. Bur strictly evaluating this from a technological perspective, it should be doable. If I can conceive of it, I wouldn't doubt if the U.S. has done it. I'm fairly certain the technology is doable.
You can’t do that with a javelin or any other manpack missile system in the US military that I am aware of.
And anything that you could do that would be susceptible to jamming.
It would also increase the size and weight of the weapon system greatly.
And honestly it seems like the value of such a thing would be extremely limited boarding on pointless.
Yeah I really just don’t see the practical use of such a weapon for the 99.9% of what the US military does.I appreciate your input; thanks.
I have no idea. I used Javelin simply as an example.
Fair point.
Ditto.
I was thinking something like that could already be in our arsenal, but on rethinking you could be right. The idea of something like a Javelin is to impower the individual soldier and small groups. If a command or control HQ needed to get involved, the would likely just call in a strike from some other resource they have.
So yeah, I suppose the type of armament I'm suggesting would not have much use in the current structure of the U.S. forces, and would only be useful in trying to circumvent some restriction, such as the one we currently have where we will not put boots on the ground, or planes in the air.
Yeah I really just don’t see the practical use of such a weapon for the 99.9% of what the US military does.
Or even the real point honestly.
What’s interesting about this particular proxy war is I don’t recall the US being quite so…vocal…about support we gave to countries fighting Russia in the past. For all I know, U.S. support for the Mujahedeen in the 80’s may have been considered the worst kept secret, but we certainly didn’t announce what we were doing. As you can see from this New York Times article from 1988, it definitely wasn’t official, public policy. I think the main difference is that the public outcry against the Russian invasion of Ukraine is so great that quiet assistance isn’t politically tenable. Which is kind of remarkable when you think about it, because technically speaking, the equations then and now are pretty much the same when it comes to undesired escalation between the two nuclear superpowers.US giving intel to Ukraine for operations in Donbas, Defense Secretary says | CNN Politics
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said publicly for the first time Thursday that the US is providing intelligence to Ukrainian forces to conduct operations in the Donbas region.www.cnn.com
--
In general terms, I realized the U.S. was providing intelligence & communications to the Ukrainian Army. But, I still am surprised and amazed at the scope and detail.
Though not in the article, I've seen commentary & analysis claiming the intelligence is not just operational intelligence, but tactical intelligence to the point of real-time pinpointing of targets at the lowest engagement levels! Wow!
--
I'll say it again:
"Boys & Girls, we have us a proxy war!"
I'll also add:
"I think Putin may have bitten off more than he could chew"
What’s interesting about this particular proxy war is I don’t recall the US being quite so…vocal…about support we gave to countries fighting Russia in the past. For all I know, U.S. support for the Mujahedeen in the 80’s may have been considered the worst kept secret, but we certainly didn’t announce what we were doing. As you can see from this New York Times article from 1988, it definitely wasn’t official, public policy. I think the main difference is that the public outcry against the Russian invasion of Ukraine is so great that quiet assistance isn’t politically tenable. Which is kind of remarkable when you think about it, because technically speaking, the equations then and now are pretty much the same when it comes to undesired escalation between the two nuclear superpowers.
“With help from China and many Moslem nations, the United States led a huge international operation over the last eight years to arm the Afghan guerrillas with the weapons they needed to drive the Soviet Army from their country.
The operation is one of the biggest ever mounted by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to American officials and foreign diplomats. It dwarfs American efforts to aid the Nicaraguan rebels, but its details are much less widely known because it encountered little opposition in Congress.
Indeed, Congress was continually prodding the C.I.A., the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the State Department to provide more support for the Afghan guerrillas, who limped along with relatively ineffective weapons until they got Stinger antiaircraft missiles in September 1986. They used the missiles to shoot down armored Soviet helicopter gunships, and as a result, the guerrillas and their supply caravans have been able to move with much less fear of being attacked from the air. Cost Totals $2 Billion
As Afghanistan and three other nations signed agreements last week providing for the withdrawal of Soviet troops, these details of the supply operation emerged from interviews with members of Congress and officials at the White House, intelligence agencies, the Defense Department, the State Department and the Office of Management and Budget:
For five years, American officials provided the guerrillas with weapons designed and manufactured by the Soviet Union or other East Bloc countries so they could deny that the United States was supplying such assistance. They could maintain that the guerrillas had captured the weapons from the Afghan Government or from Soviet troops in Afghanistan.”
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?