Do we? Sometimes he TACOs, but sometimes he does exactly what he said he would. And what about whoever the next American autocrat is?
Getting in on one of the European umbrellas would be much better, though. We could even have British or French warheads on a Canadian sub, although I doubt it could launch a Trident as the delivery system.
Interesting, I'm going to have to look into that. Soviet designs usually do have larger allowances, but the fundamental way the technology works is of course the same.
Money Identity Coercion Ego. Those are the primary motivators.
Being rich means you've solved money and probably coercion. You can either rest on your laurels or chase the other two, for good or for evil. There's rich philanthropists - some who give almost everything away - and then whatever Elon Musk is, but most go for the rest on their laurels thing, and so you probably haven't heard of them.
Dehumanising someone also serves our identity and ego, FYI, which is where this thread came from.
Even the capitalists are behaving differently and more humane compared the fuedalists of the middle ages.
Yes, because their source of wealth is fundamentally different. Lords had to project violence and play court politics to keep their position. Still do, in some places. The rich in developed countries, on the other hand, can rely on strong rule of law to protect their property with very little personal input.
Also why if the apocalypse ever happened, they'd get owned and somebody else would take their bunker.
It's more doctrine than actual machine accuracy. They plan to hit a large area as their primary technique of inflicting damage, while a NATO force waits for some kind of known target or goal (like "make this route unusable").
The first part if your comment doesn’t make sense.
It's just a thick metal tube, and it's designed to have explosions in it normally. Your drone might simply make dents, and if not the crew will still be safe and mobile to get back to base for repair. Then it can go back out and keep fighting.
Being out there and sending a drone is of course not risk-free for the attackers, and the reward is so much less than the hardkill they'd get without the cage being in the way.
It is a massive target with atrocious visibility and an engine that is already underpowered without adding tons of extra weight.
Compared to the tank, it's not going to weigh much. It's pretty typical to add stuff on to your armour. The visibility thing is legit though, and you can see they've tried to retain as much as possible.
Hmm, are the Russians also having problems in that department? This is a Ukrainian tank per the title.
That said, it's a reasonable general take. Every time there's a new weapon this debate plays out. Sometimes it's the atom bomb and lives up to the hype, but sometimes it's the interwar bomber that doesn't always get through.
Yeah, I was wondering why that was specified. I spent some time looking into if it could fire nukes as well this morning. The verdict is maybe; a lot is secret, but the kind of tubes the KSS-III has are thought to be larger than their ship-borne equivalent.
Yep. If we want to stand on our own to feet, just the ability to attack a ship (eventually) isn't enough. The ability to roll up anywhere on the same ocean and fire missiles is at least as useful. Buying both might be an option, although that costs.
I think it was meant that the arctic isn't the only theater that matters. According to the bio Micheal Lalond was in the military, so it's not a "nobody will ever attack us" thing.
Yes, the Russian versions strand themselves pretty often, which is why they've tried to make this one pretty transparent. Since it's only slightly larger than the tank already is, I doubt it makes a difference in terms of detection, though.
Time will tell if it's a gamechanger or just a reasonable enough strategy both sides keep trying it.
Tanks are good at shrugging off non-specific light damage. That's basically definitional. As I understand it, this design is supposed to make it much harder to target weak points (so specific damage).
According to Perun, Russian assualt sheds get softkilled by their own poor visibility more often than blown up, because they just drive into things. You can see they've tried to keep a degree of transparency in this Ukrainian version.
And it's literally Hitler to leave hyperbolic comments online. /s