|
U.S. Has Stopped Ukrainian ATACMS Strikes On Russia
As further ATACMS strikes on Russia seem to have stopped this timeline is of interest.
November 18:
U.S. allows Ukraine to use ATACMS missiles against targets within Russia:
The reversal of policy, nearly 1,000 days since Russia started its full-scale invasion on Ukraine, comes largely in response to Russia's deployment of North Korean troops to supplement its forces, a development that has caused alarm in Washington and Kyiv, a U.S. official and a source familiar with the decision told Reuters.
[Note: There is no evidence that any North Korean troops were deployed by Russia anywhere near Ukraine.]
November 19 and November 20/21:
Ukraine hits an ammunition depot in Russia's Bryansk Oblast, far from any relevant frontline, as well as military facilities in Russia's Kursk oblast:
On November 19, six ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles produced by the United States, and on November 21, during a combined missile assault involving British Storm Shadow systems and HIMARS systems produced by the US, attacked military facilities inside the Russian Federation in the Bryansk and Kursk regions.
…
The fire at the ammunition depot in the Bryansk Region, caused by the debris of ATACMS missiles, was extinguished without casualties or significant damage. In the Kursk Region, the attack targeted one of the command posts of our group North. Regrettably, the attack and the subsequent air defence battle resulted in casualties, both fatalities and injuries, among the perimeter security units and servicing staff.
November 21:
Russia fires a new missile with hypersonic kinetic warheads at a military industrial complex in Dnipro:
In response to the deployment of American and British long-range weapons, on November 21, the Russian Armed Forces delivered a combined strike on a facility within Ukraine’s defence industrial complex. In field conditions, we also carried out tests of one of Russia’s latest medium-range missile systems – in this case, carrying a non-nuclear hypersonic ballistic missile that our engineers named Oreshnik. The tests were successful, achieving the intended objective of the launch. In the city of Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, one of the largest and most famous industrial complexes from the Soviet Union era, which continues to produce missiles and other armaments, was hit.
November 23 and 25:
Ukraine continues with ATACMS strikes against targets within Russia:
On 23 November, the enemy fired five U.S.-made ATACMS operational-tactical missiles at a position of an S-400 anti-aircraft battalion near Lotarevka (37 kilometres north-west of Kursk).
During a surface-to-air battle, a Pantsir AAMG crew protecting the battalion destroyed three ATACMS missiles, and two hit their intended targets.
As a result of the strike, a radar was damaged. There are casualties among personnel.
On 25 November, the Kiev regime delivered one more strike by eight ATACMS operational-tactical missiles at the Kursk-Vostochny airfield (near Khalino). Seven missile were shot down by S-400 SAM and Pantsir AAMG systems, one missile hit the assigned target. Two servicemen were lightly wounded and infrastructure objects sustained minor damage by missile debris.
After investigating the attacked sites it was confirmed that the AFU delivered strikes by U.S.-made ATACMS operational-tactical missiles.
November 27:
The Russian Gen. Valery Gerasimov has a phone call with Gen. CQ Brown, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
Gen. Valery Gerasimov initiated last Wednesday's call with Gen. CQ Brown, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to provide him with that warning and to also discuss Ukraine and how to avoid miscalculation between the U.S. and Russia about that ongoing conflict.
November 28:
Putin announces the response to the November 23/25 strikes:
Last night, we conducted a comprehensive strike utilising 90 missiles of these classes and 100 drones, successfully hitting 17 targets. These included military installations, defence industry sites, and their support infrastructure. I want to emphasise once again that these strikes were carried out in response to the continued attacks on Russian territory using American ATACMS missiles. As I have repeatedly stated, such actions will always elicit a response.
It seems that Russia's message has finally reached its recipient.
December 5/6:
In another strike on Russia Ukraine has used fix wing UAVs but no ATACMS:
Last night, the Russian Armed Forces have foiled another attempt by the Kiev regime to launch a terrorist attack using a fixed-wing UAV against the facilities in the Russian Federation.
Thirty three Ukrainian unmanned aerial vehicles were intercepted by alerted air defence systems over Kursk region. Fourteen UAVs were shot down over the territory of Voronezh region, eleven over Kursk region, seven over Belgorod region, and one over the Crimean Republic.
Moreover, the naval aviation of the Black Sea Fleet destroyed two uncrewed surface vehicles moving to the Crimean peninsula in waters of the Black Sea.
Since Gerasimov's phone call (and Putin's speech) there have been NO reports of any further ATACMS (or Storm Shadow) strikes on Russia!
During his announcement of the latest strikes Putin also described the effects of the hypersonic missile strike:
The system deploys dozens of homing warheads that strike the target at a velocity of Mach 10, equivalent to approximately three kilometres per second. The temperature of the impact elements reaches 4,000 degrees Celsius – nearing the surface temperature of the sun, which is around 5,500–6,000 degrees.
Consequently, everything within the explosion’s epicentre is reduced to fractions, elementary particles, essentially turning to dust. The missile is capable of destroying even heavily fortified structures and those located at significant depths.
During several interviews in recent days MIT Prof. Ted Postol disagreed (vid) with Putin's claim. Postol describes the Oreshnik impacts as shallow surface explosions with the force of about 1.5 times the weight equivalent in TNT explosives. With an estimated warhead weight of 100 kilogram the impact of each of the Oreshnik's 36 warheads would be no bigger than a regular small bomb. This would make them mostly useless against anything but large area surface targets.
I am doubtful that Postol got this right:
- Putin is usually extraordinary well informed and not in the habit of making false claims. If he states that Oreshnik warheads have deep penetration capabilities then they are likely to have these.
- It would make little to no sense for the Russian's to demonstrate the Oreshnik on hardened targets, as the bunkers of the Yuzhmash machine plant are, if it does not have significant effects on these. It would be a bluff that could and would be immediately called by the Pentagon specialist inspecting the localities and observing the effects.
- The U.S. is taking the strike seriously. It has reacted by stopping support for further Ukrainian ATACMS strikes on Russia.
Weapon experts like Postol have little experience with hypersonic projectiles which impact at 10 times the speed of sound. I believe that his assessment is sincere. He also applies the necessary caveats. But I doubt that he, like most other experts, has sufficient experience with the effects of dart like hypersonic projectiles to further back up his claims.
I thus recommend, if only out of abundance of caution, to assume that the Russian claims of bunker busting capabilities of Oreshnik missiles are very real.
The very idea of gambling with a nuclear war is absolutely insane. Russia is not an existential threat to the west. The west is an existential threat to them. Western warmongers who think they can defeat Russia are like billionaire drunks totally out of touch with reality, in a rigged game. It is 100% IMPOSSIBLE for them to “win”, but they are seriously considering risking the lives of everyone, in a rigged came where the outcome is known in advance (to those who face the facts). Anyone considering getting us all killed is very dangerous & should be locked up & held in maximum security mental health facilitie. Such people are in desperated need of help.
To all who dream of defeating Russia, please learn more!
A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?
—Ronald Reagan, Third State of the Union Address, (1984)
The world is a very different one now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty, and all forms of human life.
—John F. Kennedy, Inaugural address (1961)
Every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness. The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us.
—John F. Kennedy, Address to the UN General Assembly, (September 1961)
It was luck that prevented nuclear war. We came that close to nuclear war at the end. Rational individuals: Kennedy was rational; Khrushchev was rational; Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today.
—Robert McNamara, The Fog of War (2003)
These are the stakes! To make a world in which all of God’s children can live, or to go into the dark. We must either love each other, or we must die.
—Lyndon B. Johnson (1964)
In an all-out nuclear war, more destructive power than in all of World War II would be unleashed every second during the long afternoon it would take for all the missiles and bombs to fall. A World War II every second — [means that] more people killed in the first few hours than in all the wars of history put together. The survivors, if any, would live in despair amid the poisoned ruins of a civilization that had committed suicide.
—Jimmy Carter (1981)
The living will envy the dead.
—Attributed to Nikita Khrushchev, speaking of nuclear war
I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later.
A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn’t preventive war; that is war.
I don’t believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn’t even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.… It seems to me that when, by definition, a term is just ridiculous in itself, there is no use in going any further.
—Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954
This very triumph of scientific annihilation—this very success of invention—has destroyed the possibility of war’s being a medium for the practical settlement of international differences.
The enormous destruction to both sides of closely matched opponents makes it impossible for even the winner to translate it into anything but
his own disaster….
Global war has become a Frankenstein to destroy both sides. No longer is it a weapon of adventure—the shortcut to international power. If you lose, you are annihilated. If you win, you stand only to lose. No longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of a duel. It contains now only the germs of double suicide.
—Douglas MacArthur, 1961
The paradox of nuclear weapons is that the most powerful weapons ever created have no practical value as actual weapons of war, since there can be no winner in a war that kills everybody. Any use of nuclear weapons would quickly trigger a massive use of them by one side or the other, and the war would soon be over for all of us. The only winners would be a few species of radiation-resistant insects
—Medea Benjamin and Nick Davies
What is the only provocation that could bring about the use of nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons. What is the priority target for nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons. What is the only established defense against nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons. How do we prevent the use of nuclear weapons? By threatening the use of nuclear weapons. And we can’t get rid of nuclear weapons, because of nuclear weapons. The intransigence, it seems, is a function of the weapons themselves.
—Martin Amis, Einstein’s Monsters (1987)
A nuclear war does not defend a country and it does not defend a system. I’ve put it the same way many times; not even the most accomplished ideologue will be able to tell the difference between the ashes of capitalism and the ashes of communism.
—John Kenneth Galbraith (1986)
President Trump is… perfectly right when he says we should have better relations with Russia. Being dragged through the mud for that is outlandish… Russia shouldn’t refuse to deal with the United States because the U.S. carried out the worst crime of the century in the invasion of Iraq, much worse than anything Russia has done. But they shouldn’t refuse to deal with us for that reason, and we shouldn’t refuse to deal with them for whatever infractions they may have carried out, which certainly exist. This is just absurd.
We have to move towards better — right at the Russian border, there are very extreme tensions, that could blow up anytime and lead to what would in fact be a terminal nuclear war, terminal for the species and life on Earth. We’re very close to that…
First of all, we should do things to ameliorate it.
Secondly, we should ask why. Well, it’s because NATO expanded after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in violation of verbal promises to Mikhail Gorbachev, mostly under Clinton, partly under first Bush, then Clinton expanded right to the Russian border, expanded further under Obama… The fate of… organized human society, even of the survival of the species, depends on this. How much attention is given to these things as compared with, you know, whether Trump lied about something?
—Noam Chomsky on Mass Media Obsession with Russia & the Stories Not Being Covered in the Trump Era, Democracy Now, (27 July 2018)
So many nations today possess the nuclear bomb, the most destructive weapon ever conceived and built, that a future major war would be the ultimate horror: the complete destruction of life on planet [[Earth]]. For many millions of years Earth would be a dead planet, a toxic waste. Men, themselves, would have to incarnate on some dark, far-off world, and begin again the long, long journey into the light.
—Benjamin Creme
—————————–
=============================
Source: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_war&oldid=3590569
Uncensored page (before 116,638 bytes of 118,186 were disappeared/censored in Nov 2024)
Thank you for thinking & caring!
Posted by: WillSeymour | Dec 9 2024 6:06 utc | 359
|
