• DadWagonDriver@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      1 year ago

      The use of drones in this war is fascinating from afar.

      From an American perspective, I keep seeing calls from extremists for a new civil war, and it terrifies me because weaponry like this means shit will go poorly for civilians VERY quickly, even without going nuclear. I imagine that all these kids and young adults who think that playing CoD prepared them for actual war will be in for a big, brief surprise when a drone just deletes them while being operated by some guy in, like, Nevada.

      • dukeGR4@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Eh drone is just cost effective version of CAS. I think most modern jets bomber/fighter could carry out precision strikes without you ever seeing or hearing them.

        Or going in loud and proud A10 style also works, that shit is scarier lol

        • redfellow@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tbh something you can only hear the last second is way scarier 99.9% of the time, because you can’t expect to hear it’s coming. Could happen anywhere any time.

        • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Or going in loud and proud A10 style also works, that shit is scarier lol

          It saves infantry, but not the british infantry. It saves infantry, but not the british infantry.

      • _Z1useri@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Or get chased around by explosive FPV drones and Ali-express quadcopters dropping grenades.

        And that’s before someone with more resources than Ukraine inevitably makes an airplane load of these things that just automatically go for anything vaguely human shaped.

        • dukeGR4@monyet.cc
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe AliExpress drones is scarier, the fact that it’s so harmless and so lethal is equally scary 😂😂😂

      • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I take want to see a bunch of Trumpers on mobility scooters waving AR-15s take on the US army. It’ll be hilarious.

        • Cypher@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          With respect to grenades from drones… you might be right if the Russian tankers didn’t have the turret hatch open practically all the time because of how little air circulation they get.

          They’re so uncomfortable in their tanks they’re dying from a weapon they should be nearly immune to.

            • Cypher@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think you’re underestimating just how loud a tank is, you aren’t likely to hear a drone over it, and during combat operations you probably aren’t shutting down the tank when you could be fired on at any time.

              Crew comfort, keeping the tank sealed and the crew inside the tank has historically been an issue. Famously its the reason that the British Challenger tanks have tea pots inside… the crews kept hopping out to have a cuppa.

              Grenade like munitions get the job done and Ukrainian’s have proven on the battlefield that they’re vastly more accurate than artillery.

              You don’t need to trust me on this, there are dozens of videos of drones taking out Russian tanks by dropping explosives through the top hatch on combat footage subs.

  • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good. Make Russians be afraid and push them to turn on Putin. Something they should have done 20 years ago.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most of what we’re sending isn’t money, it’s assets. Assets that were constructed to fight China and Russia at the same time if needed. They were literally built and maintained in waiting for a fight with Russia. Sending them to make Russia weaker lowers the stockpile we need to maintain. The number of dollars sent over isn’t real dollars, it’s the value of assets (at the date of construction, not after technology advanced). We were literally spending money to keep them ready in case they were needed, and now they’re needed and we no longer have to spend money on them.

        We are spending some new money on aid and things, but most of the military stuff is stuff we already had kicking around, not new spending to build new stuff to send over. Also, sure we’ll have to replace some, but we would anyway as technology advances, and it also won’t be to the same level as Russia is weaker.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          it’s the value of assets (at the date of construction, not after technology advanced).

          Arguably much of it should be valued at negative monetary value as with Ukraine taking it the US won’t have to pay to decommission it. Especially ammunition gets expensive (tanks you can just dump in a desert somewhere).

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Most of what we’re sending isn’t money, it’s assets.

          Err… what? Who paid for those ‘assets’? Those ‘assets’ can’t be liquidated for capital?

          Lol, 35 upvotes. Man, this next generation sucks. Not a critical thinker among you.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, the assets can’t really just be liquidated for capital. They’re military equipment, and they’ve lost value over time anyway so the real value is less than the listed price. What can be done is giving them to another country for promises in the future.

      • WashedOver@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        In some ways it’s a great move beyond the human cost, Russian uses up their military personnel, equipment, and resources while NATO and the US commit some of their resources and older equipment to the cause but nothing new and no losses of people beyond the Ukrainians in theory for the most part.

        I know many in the US think the Russians are good guys now (Patton is probably doing cartwheels in his grave at the thought, but Nazis are good now too so maybe not) but if there is going to be future conflict, the Russian machine will be spent and tired which will help some.

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        We can always tax the rich to solve our problems.

        It’s not that the money isn’t there, lol. We just choose not to use it.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m no fan of Russia

    But at the same time I’m no fan of nuclear war either.

    The escalation of the war has to stop or else we will all feel the fallout of this war.

    • _Z1useri@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Apart from the other points that have been raised: basically every recent report about Ukrainian troops has gotten a bit in it along the lines of “they’re exhausted and have taken heavy losses, but are in good spirits and willing to fight on”.

      Especially if you read what individual soldiers are saying, I get the feeling that this war would not end, even if support to Ukraine where to vanish completely (good luck convincing Poland, the Baltics and Nordics). You’d just get Afghanistan, but the invaders are openly genocidal and don’t give a fuck about civilians at the best of times.

      • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Stop financing the war … if everyone is spending billions on a war machine to just fight -> then there will be endless fighting

        if you stop the financing and instead spend a few million on peaceful resolution, negotiation and just simply talking, the fighting will stop and there will be resolutions … it won’t be a simple fix, there will be complications, disputes and wins and losses by both sides (everyone can argue the details about it in whatever way they want) … but the end result will be an end to the fighting.

        Otherwise, if everyone keeps wanting to spend billions on fighting … the fighting will never end.

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Russia isn’t going to risk the world launching a dozen nukes at them just so they can launch one at Ukraine.

      • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        As much as that makes sense and everyone probably agrees … then why are western nations hedging their bets that the other side won’t launch a missile, even as they escalate the fighting.

        That is Russian Roulette on a global level if you ask me.

        • Raikin@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The problem is really alternatives. Give into Russias demands and they will do the same again soon. It will also send a message to China for example and make war more likely in the long run.

          What kind of peace agreement would you see possible?

          Btw if you’re interested on the topic of the risk of nuclear war related to Ukraine there’s a good video by Lonerbox in which he also explains the logic of the side you’re arguing with here in more detail.