Timeline for Why is sending troops different from sending military equipment?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 23, 2022 at 10:09 | comment | added | convert | @convert Shure it was officially called withdrawal, but the way it was performed looked very similar to what hapend to russian troops in Harkov region. | |
| Sep 22, 2022 at 23:18 | comment | added | wrod | @convert The US didn't flee. It withdrew. "Flee" implies a rout. That didn't happen. The decision to withdraw was a political one. It was unrelated to military victory or loss. It was simply a decision not to spend resources there anymore. | |
| Sep 22, 2022 at 22:46 | comment | added | convert | @wrod But USA have also fleed from Afganistan last year, does it also tell something about the level of officer preparedness in the US? | |
| Sep 22, 2022 at 18:32 | comment | added | wrod | @convert it's not the size of the army, but rather complete ineffectiveness of the Russian army that makes it weak. During the 6-day war the combined Arab armies outnumbered the Israeli forces by a factor of 2.5. And they had 3x as much equipment. They still lost. Training, logistics, and officer corp matters. The 1st US college math competition (Putnam) was b/n West Point (an officer school) and Harvard. West Point won. This should tell you something about the level of officer preparedness in the US. | |
| Sep 22, 2022 at 10:25 | comment | added | convert | @wrod Troops involved in Ukraine now is just a small part of Russian army, so Texas National Guard destroing the whole Russian army is an idea from some Holywood movy. But the main point is that any nuclear war would be World War 3 as at will afect when not the whole then big part of the world. | |
| Sep 22, 2022 at 2:30 | comment | added | wrod | It wouldn't be a world war unless some other countries joined Russia. By itself, Russia is not a significant enough military power. Texas National Guard could probably go toe-to-toe with the Russian Federation's army. | |
| Sep 21, 2022 at 21:22 | history | edited | convert | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 178 characters in body
|
| Sep 21, 2022 at 20:16 | comment | added | o.m. | @Trilarion, that would be a political determination, not a legal one. Hence no modern Western jets and MBTs so far, but refurbished ex-Soviet ones. | |
| Sep 21, 2022 at 16:50 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | @o.m. Ukraine isn't really a buyer, the weapons are more gifted. And I guess that's also partly what Russia thinks. Russia says they think NATO is involved but don't really act like it, even moving troops away from other parts of Russia to Ukraine. | |
| Sep 21, 2022 at 16:28 | comment | added | o.m. | @Trilarion, simplified but generally yes. It is a capitalist world -- selling weapons is viewed as being OK, the responsibility for the use is put on the buyer. | |
| Sep 21, 2022 at 15:56 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | So it's only a war if you send people, not if you send weapons? | |
| Sep 21, 2022 at 12:26 | history | answered | convert | CC BY-SA 4.0 |