The real villains in the Israeli / Palestine conflict are the British empire. Promising both groups a homeland in the one territory. All blame leads back to them.
A good catch
Russia have already been called extensively for their war crimes in Ukraine, Georgia,UK , Syria and Libya , Israel has been called out for war crimes
Palestinian fans wave flags and change their twitter profile and run # free Palestine even after they have massacred,raped and killed hundreds of civilians, which was met with celebrations across the world.....
Double standard hey !
Let’s be honest here. If Russia blockaded a Ukrainian city, blocking water, food, electricity, medicines and fuel everyone on here would be calling them war criminals of the highest order and losing their ****(I’m sure they would as well if the opportunity presented itself). Israel’s defence minister just declared this today. Half of Gaza’s residents are children. The Israeli government never had any moral authority to begin with. And what hamas did was vile before anyone goes off on that tangent. The double standards are breathtaking.
If Israel belives that Iran has a part in this they will launch a strike on them. Nuclear plants and perhaps their drone production facilities too!
Sorry wrong thread
It's a fair point to make.
Plus what Ukraine needs in terms of support is not the type of support that would be necessarily useful to Israel
Israel will be total preference over the next few weeks and months, there won't be debates or fighting over funding they will go all in to support Israel, and when Israel calls weapons manufacturers they will get top priority,
All I meant is that, literally, over the weekend, the Ukraine conflict lost media attention due to events in Israel.
It will, of course, be back.
I also don't think the US is going to suddenly stop supporting Ukraine and focus on Israel.
The threat to Ukraine support is more medium term and connected to present and upcoming elections, especially but not only in the US.
I think you are catastrophising again. The US is more likely to run out of the desire/political will to continue to help Ukraine, long before they could run out of military stuff to send there.
I would have thought what Israel could need from the US, is extra bombs and missiles for their US jets.
The US can't give very much of these to Ukraine given the US has not provided aircraft, has no plans to do so, and only recently said they would even allow their allies to provide such aircraft (and that has not happened yet).
3500 Abrams and yet only 30 are being sent to Ukraine over a year,
If Israel decided that they needed tanks they would get them immediately in numbers required .
But again the biggest issue is ammunition and artillery shells a new war in the middle east will add to the strain on supplies, Israel will need artillery shells fairly rapidly when this kicks off properly,and guess who's going to get priority over other countries
Three US somewhere around 3500 abrams alone, there's no shortage of equipment. It's the will to send it over there that's been lacking. Israel doesn't need the US to provide it with materials, they have plenty of their own.
Tank and artillery shells are not (with very, very few exceptions, and normally old ones) interchangeable. The only one which comes to mind in modern terms is a HE round originally developed for the Leopard which took a mortar bomb and fitted it to a propellant case, but it's been replaced by purpose-built ones since.
I don't know who thinks 'dumb' artillery isn't a part of NATO strategy, most countries are still investing in it. It can do jobs that rockets, missiles and aircraft cannot. The concern is on the level of investment it would take to increase production to 'surge' levels. It can be done, but if the current demand can be met by lesser infrastructure investment over a few years (Face it, most NATO countries are looking to build their stockpiles, but not willing to spend the money to do it tomorrow), then the defense companies might be less inclined to actually put the investment in infrastructure in place.
There is a bit of an 'out', in that in the US at least, even if the plants are operated by private companies, the machinery/tooling is often government owned. For example, General Dynamics runs the Lima Tank Plant, but the machines in the building are US Army. It's on the basis that if the government owns the machinery, then the economic arguments of efficiency or disposal of unused equipment isn't a factor for the private industry. But there would still have to be a decision to burden the taxpayer with the upfront cost.
Thanking you, not a fan of social media, didn't realise.
It's long. A critique of Ukraine's ability to produce war material, a discussion of arms transfers from other nations, an uphill diplomatic struggle - a lot due to infighting in other countries. Doubt over the reclaiming of 1991 borders. Comparison of both waring parties ability to raise new forces, a quantity over quality short term argument. A stalling of the lines and a long war.
The concerning part is who it's from, it's possibly a kite being flown to judge how receptive the message is to certain audiences.
By the by - there should be a blue translate button at the bottom of the tweet.
What does it say? Just a summary would be grand.
@Manic Moran People have been talking about the production of artillery shells and some have mentioned that it's not worth it for companies to ramp up production as "dumb" artillery isn't a part of NATO's strategy. Do you agree?
Also and this may be a stupid question but is there a major difference between shells for artillery pieces and tanks? Assuming the calibre is the same, are they interchangeable?
I find this concerning.
https://x.com/arestovych/status/1711002099247427928?s=20
Does the US retain the ability, if we compare the simpler war items of the WW2 era versus today, to do the same now. I think a nation would have to act much faster today given the level of technological advances in weaponry.
It's not commonly noted, but the US never "moved to a wartime economy footing" in WW2 either. The closest which came was the order to cease production of automobiles, a move which was conducted for political, not industrial reasons (and against the advice of Knudsen). That, and the Federal Government took over the railroads for a few weeks as it felt the strikes were overly detrimental to the war effort.
Other than that, it was left entirely to capitalism. It led to accusations of war profiteering (a big deal in the aftermath of WW1) and of favoritism as the prime contracts tended to go to major corporations. On the other hand, as Knudsen pointed out at the time the large companies were better suited to the organization of such industry at scale and were able to source and manage all the sub contractors and small businesses which sprang up. The only oddity was that there was a bit of a change in the contracting sequence where basically the government underwrote the loans necessary for infrastructure development, instead of the previous "you're on your own until we start buying the final product".
Everything else was done within normal bounds of taxation, bond measures and volunteerism. The one notable exception was rationing of petrol to passenger vehicles (to save on rubber and reduce the need to sell tyres to civilians). But farmers etc could get all the fuel they needed. The War Powers Act of 1942 did provide a lot of authorizations such as compelled production, but the powers were very seldom needed in practice.
So it's really just a matter of money. The US doesn't need to move to a war economy, it just needs to put out an acquisition plan and a budget and then let private industry sort it out.
You're talking about things that haven't even happened yet, namely a direct confrontation between Iran and Israel. That's quite a big if. What is less of an if is the prospect of large scale Israeli reprisal on the territory comprising the Palestinian Authority, and these reprisals have been short and sharp, historically. Nothing like the knockdown, drag out war currently raging in Ukraine.
I'm sure Iran is aware, for all its bluster, that if they huff and puff too hard at Israel, it is they who stand the much higher chance of being wiped off the map courtesy of the unknown number of nuclear weapons Israel currently possesses, so I don't think there is much of a possibility of a long war in Israel's near future.
For the U.S.'s part, it's pretty easy to send over a carrier strike group to the med, since they have a stated policy of not confronting Russia directly with their own stuff.
Being there is a well documented shortage of munitions and vehicles and weapons already and Israel will now get priority for any munitions especially if this is going to be a long war, and the US government is dead locked with another pending shutdown approaching and no house speaker who do you think American will want to support over other countries the answer won't be Ukraine,
They are are already deploying a carrier strike group to the med along with other assets as a show of support for Israel if Israel decides Iran is now on the table,
there will be a pivot
I can't help but raise my eyebrows at the readiness with which certain people say this at every opportunity. It's been going on since a couple of months into the invasion proper when the war was no longer being covered 24 hours by news channels.
What's being said here other than 'long running event that's no longer novel to people, usurped in the headlines by more novel event', which is basically the story of commercial news and public opinion throughout history in a nutshell?
Been a good year and a half since the start of the opining that support for Ukraine would wane, and not only are they still fighting, but they're getting Bradleys, Abrams and F-16s.
We should remind ourselves that the USA and its partners were able to maintain two quite expensive Middle Eastern occupations long after they stopped being newsy affairs.
Wouldn't surprise me because Israel is one of the most evil nations already. Equivalent to apartheid south Africa or northern Ireland when we'd no rights. In fact it's even worse.
True enough. But the problem is when murder is Russian/Palestinian war doctrine. That is, it is encouraged by the leaders. Once it is 'legal' the gates of hell are opened.
Unlike Russia the Palestinians have no place to retreat. Instead they are under military occupation.
Isn't it amazing how Israel can assert that since the Hamas attack every Palestinian they're murdered was a terrorist?
Like Russia Israel sees Nazis everywhere but in themselves.
When people engage in terrorism and murder they lose all moral authority, regardless of the background politics. This is now the position of the Palestinians (and the Russians for that matter).
Only thing thinking here that might happen for Ukraine is that Iran might slow down supplying Russia with drones etc. especially if they believe that they might be in a conflict with Israel soon if Israel does attack iran after what is happening in Israel. They might be of the opinion a conflict with Israel might be on the cards in the next few weeks and we need all weaponery available to us and not supplied onto Russia.
Alright. We've had our disagreements and I'm sure we'll have them again. But under this we'll call a truce, okay? And get back to focusing on the thread topic.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/99cb88aba86d6cd761548c5d5bb50f6a.svg)
