MagnumLoad said:
dodger02 said:
YouBet said:
MagnumLoad said:
Why has not Russia established air superiority? Have they made a deal to prevent USA/NATO intervention?
Earlier analysis said they have no guided munitions putting their pilots, who are already not trained well, and best assets at severe risk. Hoping they wouldn't need them.
Do I read this to mean that they simply don't have the capability, at all, within the Russian military to drop guided bombs? Or is it that they don't have those currently deployed in Ukraine?
The more I read and see of them rolling old rusted out cold-war era equipment and dropping dumb bombs at low altitudes, the more I start to question this whole "superpower" designation.
Then we should establish the no fly zone and call their bluff. No way those who would have to cooperate will allow putin to use strategic nuclear weapons. No matter, we should not be dissuaded from doing what is right. Doing so makes our own doom certain. putin hides in a mountain while he sends boys to commit atrocities and die. F that *******!
I feel like we hear this same thought process on this suggestion of a no-fly zone on the daily in this thread. Summary for why this is unworkable:
Air dominance would need to be secured by force, possibly including air strikes as well. That means missiles coming off the rails to secure an area. Doing this would be viewed as an act of war by Russia.
Who is going to enact this no-fly zone? The non-NATO Baltic states? Unlikely, it would probably be us and a coalition of NATO forces.
Realistically there is no way that a no-fly zone doesn't result in war between NATO and Russia, which would mean a nuclear war given the current climate and leadership.