Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

StationOost t1_j2dkacq wrote

Reply to comment by gscjj in [OC] Around 30% of countries spend more than 2% of GDP on their military by IndeterminateYogurt

No one spend more in Ukraine than Europe. Military aid is just a part of what is necessary.

−2

Til_W t1_j2dnsap wrote

An extremely important part though.

1

StationOost t1_j2dpcjc wrote

It's an important part, but American military aid is overpriced so any comparison of monetary value is useless. There is a lot you can do with 10 million, other than having a single missle.

1

Til_W t1_j2dqt3p wrote

Yes, but if you want to repel an invasion, you do need missiles, there's no way around it. Humanitarian aid is very important for lessening the pain that is already there, but it isn't going to stop Russia from hurting more.

1

StationOost t1_j2dt920 wrote

Missiles aren't that effective for defense. You can buy 100 million bullets for the price of 1 missile.

−4

Til_W t1_j2duxpy wrote

TBH, this is a really stupid take and makes me think you're not that familiar with the topic of defense.

You can't stop a main battle tank with your rifle, actually no armored vehicle - you'll at the very least want AT missiles for those. And if you haven't noticed yet: Russia has a lot of these vehicles.

Now, if you were talking about non-AT AG missiles like HARM, you need those for defense (and retaking territory) too, mainly for attacking behind the lines equipment like artillery and air defense, which both are extremely important for supporting your enemies offense.

In case you missed it, it's no longer WW1.

3

StationOost t1_j2e60g2 wrote

I didn't say you should try to stop a tank with a rifle, what a stupid suggestion. I'm saying that most of the warfare in Ukraine is by infantry right now. If that is "WW1" for you, whatever.

0

Til_W t1_j2eqxkc wrote

You said that "missiles are not that effective for defense". If Ukraine is being invaded using e. g. lots of armored vehicles and you claim that missiles are not effective, what should they use instead? You only mentioned your "100 million bullets".

Adressing the current situation on the ground: So what? Infantry needs to be supported by vehicles, artillery and missiles to be properly effective. Zelensky was specifically asking for more Patriot systems (AA missiles!) just a week ago, they need them to shoot down Russian cruise missiles which are targeting Ukrainian infrastructure - yet you claim sending missiles is not effective for defense - huh?

If you're so convinced, please give me a concrete example of what missile that the US is sending to Ukraine is not effective or a waste of money.

^(And I don't think sending 100 million bullets would be worth it instead, Ukraine isn't actually short on mags. What they will need a lot of is AA missiles and artillery munition such as shells or GMLRS missiles.)

3