The Russians have lost several times now than the population of Avdivka trying to take it. Ukraine shifted to an attritional fight to preserve combat power until they could dismantle Russian fires capabilities which they've been doing quite effectively. If they want to win the war with all their objectives, this is exactly how Ukraine does it. Killing Russians is the best way to get them to leave. Never forget that
galloog1
joined 1 year ago
The American military can be open minded. We're just so accustomed to being let down. I have a lot of respect for the French artillery units and Singaporean intelligence among others. I know people scoff at the idea that we are team players but we really are when everyone is working towards the same strategic objective.
Though they cannot take land, the Ukrainians are only getting better at dismantling Russian fires capabilities and eliminating enemy units. They are learning too and they are learning where it counts in an attritional fight. War is politics and this conflict will become politically untenable for Russia far earlier than it will for Ukraine.
Hamas targeted military outposts as a means to attacking civilian targets including a music festival and families face to face. The IDF targets military targets embedded within civilian areas. Hamas embedds themselves within civilian areas to ensure maximum civilian casualties of they are targeted. This isn't even a question at this point. The criticism is the continuation of the targeting despite it.
Again, any army on earth would produce the same results including NATO.
Any other army on earth would have similar civilian casualties going into that dense an area. Most would be worse.
I literally don't believe that you ever were involved in any level of requirements analysis or weapons programs.
Don't misrepresent their narrative. They never said it was a special military operation or anything short of a war. They were very clear that they were decorating war on Hamas and anything short of a complete Hamas surrender was inadequate. They have not decorated from this.
Why is it that in your world NASA and the military are in no way linked? I've worked in defense procurement. Literally every time you mention defense procurement the core technologies were developed through NASA contracts and proof of concepts.
The reason I'm not sending you proof is because you aren't worth the time. These things are a matter of public record. You are so far off base that there is literally nothing I can send you that will pull your head out of the sand.
Technology absolutely has reduced CO2 emissions on a per capita basis when applied. That is a categorically and demonstratively false statement in several different ways. Electric vehicles were only made viable using 1970s NASA battery technology developments. They are significantly more carbon efficient than internal combination engines over their lifetime accounting for production and raw materials.
https://www.arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/Miller_RANGE_Kickoff_2014.pdf
That's not to mention the solar technologies developed by NASA to power the things.
The level of ignorance required to come to your conclusions is only surpassed by the required level of arrogance to not bother looking it up.
I'm referencing modern insulation, not spray foam. Additionally, NASA and it's prior organization was founded to develop aerospace technologies like spray foam. It literally counts as well.
The CO2 saved through the technologies required at scale will be worth a lot more CO2.
I'm glad you mentioned the military technologies because it is still relevant as we pivot to counter China in space. NASA is a significant part of that not only in industrial scale but also technologies critical to intelligence.
I'm still waiting on someone to provide for me a single source where Hamas or the Palestinian Authority admitted that one of Israel's strikes hit something that wasn't civilian.