ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Hey Dimlee,
re my post#3558:
". . .
The distance from Kyiv to Moscow is only ~540 miles (870 km). A Mig-29 loaded with DTs and a couple of bombs, flying from Antonov Airport, could easily reach Moscow. Whether they could return safely (fuel wise) I do not know.
There is no way (I think) that the US is going to give Ukraine weapons that can accomplish something like that - not unless the theater situation changes in a very significant way. . ."
and your post#3568:
"Tochka-U ballistic missile can do this job without a need to return. But Moscow's defences are too strong and the city itself does not represent a valuable target in this war for Ukraine.
As for the other, more feasible targets, Ukrainian forces can attack across the border using the weapons available. And most probably they will attack, notwithstanding what Washington approves or not."
Moscow was just an example of what could be attacked. Imagine if it was . . . what would be the fallout? (no pun intended)
Yes, the Ukraine could attack Moscow (or some other city of their choice) with what it has now. Or they could use their longer range weapons and aircraft to attack purely military targets inside of Russia, perhaps inside of cities. And no, they do not need the permission
of the US or NATO or anybody else. But what would the fallout be?
Why not have the US send cruise missiles to the Ukrainians? The US could send a thousand BGM-109 TLAM Tomahawk cruise missiles (with single or submunition warheads) to Ukraine. The operators (though not the maintenance crews) could be trained in 3-4 days. They could decimate the assembly and supply areas in Russia out to a radius of ~690 miles (1100 km) from the launch point, or destroy aircraft and airfield faciities within the same range. What would the fallout be?
The Ukrainians could use the weapons already in their possession (many of which were sold to them by, or inherited from, the Russians) to attack targets inside of Russia - but the Russians will not be able to blame NATO or the US. IF the Ukrainians attack targets inside of Russia it will work to the advantage of the Russian propaganda machine, at least as far as generating resentment, fear, and anger, in the Russian people. If they were to attack non-military targets (even by mistake) the propaganda effects would be even worse.
I do not know if most of you have noticed, but the Ukrainians are still flatly denying responsibility for the attack on the oil depot in Belgorad, which is 22 miles (35 km) inside Russia. So either it was a false flag job by the Russians, or an attack by unhappy Russian troops, or an unauthorized mission by the Ukrainian forces, or an authorized mission being denied by the Ukrainians. Interesting.
re my post#3558:
". . .
The distance from Kyiv to Moscow is only ~540 miles (870 km). A Mig-29 loaded with DTs and a couple of bombs, flying from Antonov Airport, could easily reach Moscow. Whether they could return safely (fuel wise) I do not know.
There is no way (I think) that the US is going to give Ukraine weapons that can accomplish something like that - not unless the theater situation changes in a very significant way. . ."
and your post#3568:
"Tochka-U ballistic missile can do this job without a need to return. But Moscow's defences are too strong and the city itself does not represent a valuable target in this war for Ukraine.
As for the other, more feasible targets, Ukrainian forces can attack across the border using the weapons available. And most probably they will attack, notwithstanding what Washington approves or not."
Moscow was just an example of what could be attacked. Imagine if it was . . . what would be the fallout? (no pun intended)
Yes, the Ukraine could attack Moscow (or some other city of their choice) with what it has now. Or they could use their longer range weapons and aircraft to attack purely military targets inside of Russia, perhaps inside of cities. And no, they do not need the permission
of the US or NATO or anybody else. But what would the fallout be?Why not have the US send cruise missiles to the Ukrainians? The US could send a thousand BGM-109 TLAM Tomahawk cruise missiles (with single or submunition warheads) to Ukraine. The operators (though not the maintenance crews) could be trained in 3-4 days. They could decimate the assembly and supply areas in Russia out to a radius of ~690 miles (1100 km) from the launch point, or destroy aircraft and airfield faciities within the same range. What would the fallout be?
The Ukrainians could use the weapons already in their possession (many of which were sold to them by, or inherited from, the Russians) to attack targets inside of Russia - but the Russians will not be able to blame NATO or the US. IF the Ukrainians attack targets inside of Russia it will work to the advantage of the Russian propaganda machine, at least as far as generating resentment, fear, and anger, in the Russian people. If they were to attack non-military targets (even by mistake) the propaganda effects would be even worse.
I do not know if most of you have noticed, but the Ukrainians are still flatly denying responsibility for the attack on the oil depot in Belgorad, which is 22 miles (35 km) inside Russia. So either it was a false flag job by the Russians, or an attack by unhappy Russian troops, or an unauthorized mission by the Ukrainian forces, or an authorized mission being denied by the Ukrainians. Interesting.
