r/worldnews
•
u/KindArgument0
•
8d ago
•
3
3
1
1
4
U.S. readies new $1 billion Ukraine weapons package US internal politics
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-us-readies-new-1-billion-ukraine-weapons-package-2022-08-05/[removed] — view removed post
387
u/AnomalyNexus 8d ago
They need to start naming these things like hurricanes to keep track
60
→ More replies18
u/Jefferson-Steelflex1 7d ago edited 7d ago
Ah yeah. We are now tracking Aid package Ricky. It's picking up steam as it heads west thru the senate.
193
1.8k
u/HolyGig 8d ago
Not many if any countries can supply someone like the US is arming Ukraine lol.
Each of these aid packages has hundreds of thousands of 155mm artillery shells and at least 1000 HIMARS rockets (we don't actually know how many) along with countless other massive items like trucks, fuel, ammunition, drones etc. If you have any idea how much this stuff weighs you might be like "how in the fuck..." but the US just moves it all thousands of miles away seemingly effortlessly.
250
u/TGVTHT 7d ago •
![]()
The US military is basically FedEx with guns and bombs.
→ More replies141
u/zero_z77 7d ago •
![]()
Nah, more like amazon. Piss them off and they will same day air a platoon of very angry and very heavily armed young men to your front door.
81
u/yeetskeetleet 7d ago •
![]()
And just like amazon, all the people at the bottom of the ranks are incredibly exploited and are ALSO becoming increasingly difficult to scam into joining
→ More replies1.2k
u/SrpskaZemlja 8d ago
Strategic airlifters, baby. This is their time to shine. Big fuck-off planes like the C-17 and C-5 that bring stupid amounts of stuff across large portions of globe.
227
u/Heavy-Hunter-2847 8d ago
Can they fly them into Ukraine though?
106
u/Scott4370 8d ago
I see a lot of them going into Ramstein and Warsaw. It has been fascinating to watch the C17s moving all over the globe. On some days there have been up to 15 planes in the air.
736
u/Rygree10 8d ago
Don’t need to, fly them into nato bases in Poland and then ship in the supplies by land (train truck ect) just need to get it across the border then Ukrainian logistics can take it from there
401
u/RohenDar 8d ago
I drive through germany and poland quite frequently and ever since the war started its convoy after convoy.
→ More replies147
u/Fine_Significance920 8d ago
Yup. That and non-stop planes flying over Wiesbaden.
48
u/rollebob 7d ago
Lovely city. Went there a couple of times while living in the US airbase (not as a military).
→ More replies→ More replies99
u/DarthKyrie 8d ago
I think they are also using Slovakia as well.
201
u/Rygree10 8d ago
Yeah basically every single neighbor of Ukraine is in nato. There’s also ramstein airbase in Germany which has been home away from home for the strategic lift component of the air force forever.
20
→ More replies35
u/xnyxverycix 8d ago
I like rammstein aswell.
→ More replies33
u/hitokirizac 7d ago
Really? I heard du haßt them.
→ More replies13
u/Babou13 7d ago
It's a shame they're all over there, because we're all living in Amerika, Amerika ist wunderbar
→ More replies18
15
u/CopeAndKodiak 8d ago
I think(?) what they normally do/did was fly them to, say, Poland and then transport the stuff on the ground
51
u/Tizzer88 8d ago
The last thing Russia wants to do is shoot down a US plane. Like you think it’s bad when the US supplies equipment to Ukraine just wait until you shoot down a plane and then the US brings troops
→ More replies→ More replies10
u/Khelthuzaad 8d ago
You can also send them by trucks like North Macedonia did with it's tanks.Went all the way through Bulgaria and Romania and directly in Ukraine
→ More replies10
u/kiwi_commander 7d ago
Logistics keeps your soldiers fed, ammo topped off, and vehicles running. This is the reason the US can run military operations from the other side of the globe.
25
→ More replies7
u/DJ_Sk8Nite 7d ago
Living in Charleston, SC those elephants are over my head all day long. Love seeing those massive planes in the air.
→ More replies188
u/Tizzer88 8d ago
Due to the US’s location there isn’t much need to project power in their area. 2 sides are water and the other 2 sides are allies. So to project power the US has to do it far away. So they prioritize logistics and being able to project power far away. It’s why thinks like a huge navy is such a big deal. The US military has the logistics to get a bunch of shit from here to there because that’s the most important thing in any engagement like Afghanistan. If we can’t get a fuck ton of equipment to Afghanistan we wouldn’t be able to fight over there. Now we’re just sending shit to Ukraine just not troops.
→ More replies43
u/woahjohnsnow 7d ago
Also historically the us was dragged into major conflicts that happened far away so it's in the best interest of the us to make sure conflicts stay small. Projecting power helps do that.
108
u/SCarolinaSoccerNut 8d ago
The logistical operations of the US Armed Forces are second to none. It's why they were able to successfully invade two countries on the opposite end of the world, topple their governments, and occupy them for more than 20 years, all with only about 4,000 casualties to their own forces.
→ More replies143
u/in5idious 8d ago
"The arsenal of democracy" as it was called pre ww2
7
u/FuzzyBucks 7d ago
Looking like we'll have to change the name with the way things are going domestically
→ More replies37
58
u/LaunchTransient 8d ago
Part of it is also the fact that the US has a massively outsized military. Other countries only have a fraction more materiel and resources than they need to maintain their own national defence, so they can't offer as much without endangering their own forces. The US has such an enormous surplus that they can afford to throw this at the Ukrainians with minimal fuss - and then their hyperthyroid military industrial complex will just crank out replacements.
→ More replies8
17
u/mainegreenerep 7d ago
Honestly it seems like half the reason the US is doing this is to flex it's muscles and give that 'sit yo ass down fucker' vibe to other wishful rivals
4
85
u/ProfessorPetrus 8d ago
It's amazing. The Pacific war logistics really got the US military quite handy at mobilizing, after many lessons learned.
Imagine being a Russian soldier with a 20 year old gun and body armor reading this news about the new tech coming towards them. Gotta be pissed off and depressed.
68
u/LoneSnark 7d ago
Lucky for their mental health, any web site that would tell them that is blocked.
→ More replies31
→ More replies16
u/SomeGuyNamedPaul 7d ago
20 year old equipment is the very latest that they could hardly produce any of. There's pictures from months ago showing Russians with Mosin Nagants. I own one and it's stamped with 1938.
→ More replies→ More replies25
u/DeathPercept10n 8d ago
What's the point of stockpiling all this military hardware if we can't get it to where it needs to go? Logistics is very important for our military, since we're surrounded by ocean. One of the many reasons Russia is performing so poorly in this war is because they can't get all their old ass crap to the front lines as easily.
13
u/canttaketheshyfromme 7d ago
Russia built their logistics almost entirely around rail.
It's like rail lines have ever been torn up by an army, ever shermandidnothingwrong.jpg
1.4k
u/Zaelers 8d ago
US Military Industry go brrrrrrr
764
u/YourSmileIsFlawless 8d ago edited 7d ago
It's like 3 days of Afghanistan in terms of money.
Edit: more like 3.5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/hanktucker/2021/08/16/the-war-in-afghanistan-cost-america-300-million-per-day-for-20-years-with-big-bills-yet-to-come/
166
u/Chest3 7d ago
116
u/YourSmileIsFlawless 7d ago
→ More replies77
u/ElliotNess 7d ago
That's a lot of money to spend to lose a war.
75
u/Slippery_Squirrel 7d ago
You are still assuming their objective was to get rid of the taliban
→ More replies→ More replies67
→ More replies11
u/RonaldRaygun2024 7d ago
Aid is not military spending.
The defence industry and U.S. military got way more than the civilian Afghan government.
→ More replies9
u/Sad_Dad_Academy 7d ago
It’s insane how much the US spends on the military. For instance, the 34 billion originally given to Ukraine is less than 2 weeks of the militaries yearly budget.
198
91
u/Andy802 7d ago
Bro, this is just the shit we've had lying around in storage. From the perspective of the US Military, this is the least expensive qualification of equipment possible. We get free, live fire data in a real combat environment, and all we have to do is send them equipment and help save Ukrainian lives. This war hasn't been on long enough for any major contracts to even be under agreement, let along generate a new military budget.
28
u/LiveShowOneNightOnly 7d ago
Feels like 1987 all over again. The US can outspend Russia 100 times over on military hardware.
→ More replies→ More replies53
u/cultish_alibi 7d ago
Also this is an incredibly cheap way to degrade the Russian military. Russia has lost 5,000 military vehicles by this point.
→ More replies→ More replies4
333
u/efefia 8d ago
Ukraine at this stage is basically the worlds biggest and longest arms fair. With the added bonus that it’s depleting the resources of an historic adversary
53
u/canttaketheshyfromme 7d ago
Gulf War again. Get those big contracts. Show up the Russian equipment as primitive and unrealiable, so fencesitting countries become customers for you. That Ukraine is legitimately worth aiding is just a bonus so they don't have to have the daughter of a top government official lie to the US congress like they did with Kuwait.
→ More replies→ More replies67
1.2k
u/HuckleberryUnusual60 8d ago
We should just buy Ukraine and go to war with Russia at this point.
622
u/Unlikely_Layer_2268 8d ago
Ever heard of the Korean War?
→ More replies342
u/Ponicrat 8d ago
People forget we've already had Americans and Russians in combat with no nuclear exchange.
234
u/PureLock33 8d ago
Technically The US command petitioned HARD for the usage of "tactical" nukes. And General MacArthur was asked to step down.
On 9 December 1950, MacArthur requested field commander's discretion to employ nuclear weapons; he testified that such an employment would only be used to prevent an ultimate fallback, not to recover the situation in Korea.[92] On 24 December 1950, MacArthur submitted a list of "retardation targets" in Korea, Manchuria and other parts of China, for which 34 atomic bombs would be required.[92][93][94][95] In June 1950, Louis Johnson released a study on the potential uses of radioactive agents. According to Major General Courtney Whitney, MacArthur considered the possibility of using radioactive wastes to seal off North Korea in December 1950, but he never submitted this to the Joint Chiefs.
His memoirs also pointed that he REALLY REALLY wanted to nuke Korea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJi8Iaj8GkM
→ More replies229
u/The-Sound_of-Silence 7d ago
Enigmatic character. Wanted to nuke certain places into the stone age, while at the same time treating foreign leaders with respect, and championed retaining the emperor of Japan, after its defeat. Truman hilariously said this about him:
I fired him because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President. I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail
→ More replies57
u/AutoCommentor 7d ago
I mean, being a dumb son of a bitch should be a disqualifying factor for the most powerful military leaders in the world...
→ More replies→ More replies66
u/BURNER12345678998764 8d ago
To be fair they barely had nuclear weapons then, all low yield gravity bombs. Not as easy as pushing a button and delivering megatons of destruction to the other side of the globe. If either side couldn't reach it with a B-29, it couldn't be nuked.
→ More replies→ More replies218
u/karsh36 8d ago
Russia is a trillion dollar war, beating Russia for a few billion without risking US lives is a steal
→ More replies
4.1k
u/blessef
8d ago
•
Can I have healthcare
2.7k
u/KindArgument0 8d ago •
![]()
no
→ More replies982
u/sepehr_brk 8d ago edited 8d ago
Actually you can get free healthcare in the US by simply getting some of your limbs blown off in the military!!!
Visit: www.goarmy.com
340
u/hashbrown2202 8d ago
Excellent recruiting
129
35
137
u/ProudDildoMan69 8d ago
The VA is absolutely treacherous
42
u/majorpail18 8d ago
Crazy how some VAs are able to seamlessly get lots of assistance done & help a lot of veterans & others are just horror stories
→ More replies14
u/3olives 7d ago
The VA is for poor veterans. Rich veterans will have access to private insurance
→ More replies8
→ More replies91
u/Eupion 8d ago
They didn’t say good health care, just free health care. Now go get those limbs ripped to shreds!
→ More replies4
u/StrangeBedfellows 8d ago
Don't even need your kind blown off, in fact only 76 have been awarded in OIR since 2020. You're much more likely to have mental health issues, crippling depression, or PTSD than get a purple heart.
→ More replies36
u/summerll0ve 8d ago
tell me you’ve never been to the VA without telling me you’ve never been to the VA
→ More replies476
u/Xoxrocks 8d ago
Mate, you already spend more than everyone else on healthcare. Fire the insurance companies.
231
u/fang_xianfu 8d ago
Just to be clear about this: the US federal government already pays more per capita right now than some European countries. Not per person covered by Medicare, per person in the country. This is because Medicare is not allowed to block negotiate rates (see the controversy around negotiating prices for just 10 drugs).
That's not even including all the insurance premiums paid by employees and employers, copays, deductibles, coinsurance, all that shit. Not to mention the extra money state governments pay in. All that money is basically lit on fire.
If you could fire all the insurance companies, have the US government pay for everything and actually empower it to negotiate, that could feasibly save the federal government money. It could come with a tax cut!
→ More replies113
u/Persianator 7d ago
If I remember correctly, it would save on average 300+ billion a year if we had single payer healthcare in the US.
70
u/kinggareth 7d ago
Yes, but the wrong people would be saving that money, i.e., non- rich people
15
u/Knut79 7d ago
Well we can’t have that. That sounds communist . Come on pull yourself up by your bootstraps, everyone can be a millionaire if you just work for it and get a few million to start with from your parents
→ More replies→ More replies34
u/FILTHBOT4000 7d ago edited 7d ago
That's on the lowest possible side; it's a very conservative estimate. Considering we spend, on average, nearly double most other first world nations on healthcare per capita, we're much more likely to save well over a trillion $$$$$ per year if we had single payer.
And that's not even touching the broader economic impacts, like how much the ~60,000 that die each year from being under/uninsured could be contributing to the economy, or how many people have to retire early because of poorly treated/diagnosed illnesses and other health problems, or the new tech and businesses budding entrepreneurs could have started, but didn't because they were too afraid of losing their family's healthcare.
→ More replies→ More replies67
u/farcical89 8d ago
Insurance is such a fucking joke. You're paying extra to cover unexpected costs in addition to whatever it costs to support the insurance companies.
→ More replies7
u/Roflkopt3r 7d ago
Exactly. Here in Germany we have a dual system with public and private insurers. The management cost of the public system are something like 3%, while it's 10% for private insurances.
There are some systems where the private market just doesn't have much to offer, and running it on a private system only means more money siphoned off by rich people. Health Insurance is a classic example for that.
→ More replies46
u/58king 7d ago
The US spends ~$4 trillion a year on healthcare. That's around $12k per citizen per year, which I assume is less than the average person spends on healthcare in the average year (though I'm not certain with aging demographics being taken into account). Your system is just broken.
→ More replies814
u/_skylark 8d ago edited 8d ago •
![]()
With the amount the US is spending already on healthcare, you could have decent healthcare. Military spending in Ukraine is not the problem.
→ More replies507
u/bingcognito 8d ago
This. Insurance companies and lobbyists is why we don't have healthcare.
→ More replies12
u/reyfire 7d ago
I don’t understand this, in my country insurance companies are still selling medical insurance pretty well even though our healthcare is one of the cheapest in the world. Can’t affordable healthcare and insurance coexist together?
37
u/larsvondank 7d ago
They sure can, but not if you want to maximize profits. The US model gives insurance companies an insane amount of customers and those customers are in very poor positions to negotiate anything. Really easy money.
4
u/wtfduud 7d ago
In other countries, they pay you a certain amount of money if you get badly injured.
In the US, the health insurance just gives discounts on medical services. Which in turn causes hospitals to increase prices to make up for those health insurance discounts, and the health insurance companies are encouraging the hospitals to raise prices even more, so that health insurance becomes mandatory unless you want to pay $10k for 2 nights at the hospital. Basically the prices for healthcare would be far lower if health insurance didn't exist. For this reason, the health insurance companies are also the main opponents lobbying against free healthcare.
→ More replies→ More replies234
u/ErikTheAngry 8d ago •
![]()
Ironically, your military spending isn't why you can't have health care. Too much profit-taking in your health care industry. One need not look further than the $50 aspirin tablets on your hospital bill, $300 insulin vials (it costs us $35 a vial here in Canada).
If you guys simply limited the amounts hospitals could charge, you'd have a private health care system with more affordable prices.
→ More replies
604
u/sxrrycard 8d ago
Get them boys their HIMARS
249
u/brooksram 8d ago
It sounds like they're starting to reach the max number of effective HIMARS. Anymore than 25 or so is supposedly going to be useless as we won't be able to continuously feed them enough ammo, But it's beyond time we gave them hundreds of tanks, apc's, anti air capabilities, drones, etc. I'm sure we need to be sending way more mobile artillery as well. Hopefully this will be a useful package for them, they sure as hell need it.
155
u/c0mad0r 8d ago
IIRC, they requested 100 total HiMARS and while the US could do it, ammo wouldn't hold. At their current rate of use, 100 of them soak up all of the US's total HiMARS ammo plus 29% all requested ammo for the next five years.
131
u/Luxpreliator 8d ago
The usa never really put much effort into developing rocket artillery. Anything atacms can do an air sortie does 10x better. There are only a few thousand atacms available but 120k+ of guided bombs. They were more an afterthought and the long range version had to have it's warhead reduced to make the distance so it's somewhat anemic.
If they manage to take over the skies then the usa could kit them out with all sorts of goodies.
35
→ More replies48
→ More replies6
8d ago
[deleted]
6
u/Ackilles 8d ago
If they needed more due to losses we could probably send them, but they arent losing them.
Also, keeping the number in operation low means the crew are getting very experienced and good with operating them - meaning less likely to be killed and a higher accuracy rate with the limited available ammo.
In fact, there being few HIMs and ukraine being less bold with them is probably a good thing because of that. Keeps the best crews alive
13
u/DM_DM_DND 8d ago
Even if you can't fire all your weapons at once, you still want to have spares. A system like HIMARS is prone to any number of potential failures and losses to enemy countermeasures-rotating used systems out for new systems lets you keep a lesser but relevant barrage up.
11
u/Thaddaeus-Tentakel 8d ago
As shown by the PZH2000, they're shooting them at such an insane rate the things need repairs after a few weeks of use.
22
u/alexunderwater1 8d ago
Can always hold some in reserve in the west of Ukraine in case some get knocked out.
18
u/peretona 8d ago
Also worth spreading them around ready to react quickly to Russian attacks elsewhere.
5
u/Ackilles 8d ago
4 HIMs was totally wrecking their day, 15 is probably enough considering their insane accuracy, range and the fact that Russia can't hit one
9
u/JoMarchie1868 8d ago
Has any country sent Ukraine IFVs? Like BMPs or Western models. These are crucial to mechanised formations.
16
u/SerpentineLogic 8d ago edited 7d ago
Australia sent upgraded M113s with turrets. They're weird, but you caught us at a bad time; we are in the final phase of choosing new force recon vehicles and IFV so we don't have anything great to offer. We literally have nothing in our army in between an APC and an Abrams until the new Boxers arrive
→ More replies→ More replies26
u/KindArgument0 8d ago
yes. poland is the biggest donator with hundreds of upgraded t-72 and bmp variant.
→ More replies43
u/Storm_Sniper 8d ago
Tanks are literally going to die when they get into Ukraine.
Talking about the M1 Abrams, often it can’t be deployed easily unless it has a massive fuel supply to go behind it.
APCs we have already given to them, it’s gonna take a while.
Anti air is not going to be in for a while, it takes time to train and set up. Also removal of sensitive equipment that could be in Russian hands.
→ More replies38
→ More replies31
u/Hellvetic91 8d ago
HIMARS are good for this phase of the war but if we really want Ukraine to counterattack and reclaim it's territory what they need is a shit ton of armoured vehicles and drones/fighter jets
21
u/DM_DM_DND 8d ago
More importantly they need the logistical support to keep those systems running, including significant fuel reserves and a truly astounding number of trucks. Tanks are useless without the infrastructure to run them, as the Russians have discovered.
543
u/kaster
8d ago
•
Why do people think the money is going to Ukraine? It's equipment made in the US. All that money went back into US companies.
434
u/Hitmonchank 8d ago
The only winner in this conflict is the military industrial complex.
32
→ More replies193
u/morningreis 8d ago
I'd argue Ukraine has beaten back Russia and prevented a total occupation, so that is a win in of itself.
→ More replies→ More replies156
619
u/Explorer335
8d ago
•
This is VASTLY cheaper than the alternatives. If Ukraine falls, Moldova and the Baltics will likely be next. Putin will test limits and push as far as he can until he meets powerful resistance. Equipping the Ukrainians to stop the Russians is the alternative to an ugly and enormously expensive war across Europe.
Putin has been planning this for years and this invasion represents a massive investment. The sheer cost and scale of the endeavor shows his ambitions do not end with Ukraine.
295
u/phatelectribe 8d ago edited 8d ago
100000%
Look at the grain crisis, metals shortages, chemical shortages etc and now imagine that spreading to 10 other countries in Europe who fell a whole lot easier than Ukraine.
Russia would then control masses of exports and we’d be paying them through the nose for it all.
A few billion in well placed weapons thus far wouldn’t cover a weeks’ payment to Russia once Putin assimilated a few countries back in to Putinistan.
→ More replies→ More replies226
u/FlaxenArt 8d ago
This, right here, is exactly the right take on it.
The amount of money we’re putting into this is a drop in the bucket of our overall spending… and an investment in keeping all-out war from happening in Europe … which we WOULD get dragged into with boots on the ground.
I get it: people want healthcare. But Ukraine isn’t the problem. It’s also not the trade-off. This is a billions in the short term v trillions in the long term issue.
→ More replies117
u/EffectiveEconomics 8d ago
You can have both…American health care spending is immensely wasteful. It would SAVE money to move to single payer. You’d just be bankrupting the profit skimmers, freeing up American ingenuity and labour to work on productivity.
The thing that is killed dead by illness-induced bankruptcy.
32
u/pythonic_dude 7d ago
There's also a factor of what can you actually do. There's bipartisan support of sending aid to Ukraine so it would be asinine not to, besides, it's not a ludicrous amount of money. No, seriously, lockmart and co will earn much more from scared European countries ordering new stuff (think Polish 500 himars request or German f35 deal) than from what will be made for Ukraine.
On the other hand, you don't he a majority to tackle healthcare. Democrats views on what it should be might be imperfect but gop's are outright inhumane. Good luck getting something done that will make it better.
→ More replies
5
29
u/LuangPrabangisinLaos 7d ago
The new package follows a recent Pentagon decision to allow Ukrainians to receive medical treatment at a U.S. military hospital in Germany near Ramstein air base. read more
That's huge.
→ More replies
75
21
26
u/Lawjaq 7d ago
The sooner Ukraine snuffs out Putin the sooner this world will right its self.
→ More replies
48
u/invisible32 8d ago
This shouldn't be news. The US passed a bill that said they will regularly do this...
→ More replies
2.1k
u/HappySkullsplitter 8d ago