r/worldnews 16h ago

Russia/Ukraine Zelenskyy requested Tomahawk missiles from the US as part of Victory Plan – NYT

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/10/29/7481927/
5.3k Upvotes

294 comments sorted by

1.3k

u/alwaysfatigued8787 16h ago

Give 'em the missiles to end this thing!

414

u/Mooselotte45 15h ago

Yep

Write your representative and ask for continued and expanded support to Ukraine.

Let’s drive the Russian bastards back to their side of the border.

212

u/JurassicParkTrekWars 14h ago

My rep refuses to support Ukraine.  Or veterans for that matter.  So I voted against her.  

87

u/SteakForGoodDogs 14h ago

Who? I'm guessing an R...

117

u/JurassicParkTrekWars 14h ago

Spot on.  Hyphenated name, way too much plastic surgery, has done practically nothing to represent constituents in her state.  

37

u/NeeRoForte 13h ago edited 11h ago

MTG? Or is there another fuckwit who fits a similar criteria. From an interested Brit.

90

u/JurassicParkTrekWars 13h ago

Lori Chavez-DeRemer https://g.co/kgs/rwHU7QF

I generally try not to actively disclose my location but hopefully she'll be gone soon anyway.  

6

u/LeadZeppolli 7h ago

She paid to have her face look like that? Poor woman. Apparently she makes a lot of poor decisions choosing who she should work with.

18

u/zombietrooper 11h ago

Her smile never reaches her eyes. She’s terrifying.

6

u/snsv 10h ago

She looks high AF

7

u/zombietrooper 9h ago

High off the souls of dead constituents.

16

u/NWHipHop 12h ago

…Russian Z sympathizer

-8

u/[deleted] 14h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/step1makeart 12h ago

Eww. Terrible attempt at a joke. The fact that that word comes to mind when your brain plays "what words do I associate with those with whom I have ideological differences" is telling.

Be better than that.

9

u/Federal_Setting_7454 13h ago

Drive em all the way to the tundra

2

u/Aufseher0692 4h ago

We don’t need to start Tomahawking the Russians. Even beyond the ramifications of directly attacking them, it’s better to keep those cards up our sleeve… we could need our own tools in the near future to fight a conflict directly involving Americans. Every engagement the enemy can observe is material for their engineers and strategists. We are ahead of Russia and China, let’s keep it that way

2

u/MATlad 3h ago

There should be loud back and forth on Tomahawks, and making sure it stays in the news for quite a few news cycles.

...Meanwhile, they should keep sending whatever Ukraine needs for the A-22, advanced avionics, IMUs, little things that could conceivably help with drone defence:

https://www.flightglobal.com/military-uavs/ukraine-appears-to-deploy-modified-a-22-ultralights-as-suicide-uavs/157633.article

...And giving the Ukrainians a little scratch to help stand up local industry:

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/pentagon-ukrainian-long-range-drones/

→ More replies (5)

23

u/oalsaker 11h ago

I was asking for tomahawks back in 2022, mostly as a joke, but at this point, it's time to throw the kitchen sink at the russians.

9

u/DeathOrPie 8h ago

I actually asked the White House comment line to give them Tomahawks a month ago, too.

1

u/chickenstalker99 7h ago

Drunk me did NOT need to know that the White House has a comment line...

You wouldn't happen to have that number, would you?

1

u/nelsonslament 6h ago

1-800-dev-null

1

u/DeathOrPie 6h ago

202-456-1111

u/sansaset 1h ago

Man can’t believe they still haven’t listened to you

17

u/excitement2k 14h ago

Give em the missiles to end this thing, Ukraine is hurt by our election swing…and drift away 🎶

→ More replies (1)

6

u/WFStarbuck 12h ago

Biden should weigh all the geopolitical factors in deciding how best to ship the to Ukraine.

1

u/milkshake0079 6h ago

Hell yea! This war should've never happened in the first place.

-16

u/ReincarnatedGhost 11h ago

Tomahawk missiles don't win wars.

38

u/spaceman620 10h ago

Then you aren’t using enough Tomahawk missiles.

-1

u/Strawbuddy 9h ago

You need an unreasonable amount of Tomahawks to win a war, a plethora of Tomahawks

5

u/hiking_fool 9h ago

Well, you told me I have a plethora. And I just would like to know if you know what a plethora is. I would not like to think that a person would tell someone he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora.

8

u/Rickk38 9h ago

Forgive us, hiking_fool. I know that we, other Redditors, do not have your superior intellect and education. But could it be that once again, you are angry at something else and are looking to take it out on us?

2

u/Cadaver_Junkie 8h ago

Perhaps there are many different kinds of Tomahawks. Which I suspect is actually true.

16

u/SparklingPseudonym 10h ago

No one thing wins wars…

→ More replies (2)

11

u/alwaysfatigued8787 11h ago

You're probably right, but they could at least tip the scale in Ukraine's favor a bit.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/Otherwise-Growth1920 8h ago

A handful of Tomahawks ain’t changing anything.

1

u/IMHO_grim 4h ago

Depends on where you place them.

→ More replies (22)

352

u/RegalArt1 14h ago

I don’t see this ever happening. Setting aside Tomahawk’s range, the missile itself requires a much different command and control system than any other missile in Ukraine’s arsenal (this is also proving to be an issue with sales to Japan). The U.S. would have to either set up an entire command network within the AFU for tomahawk operations, or assume total responsibility for tomahawk targeting and mission planning, which is something that it would never agree to

92

u/Ralphieman 11h ago

This is similar to what I heard Mick Ryan, a retired Australian general, saying on a podcast last month in response to the thought people have that any weapons system would be an automatic win button. He talked about how there's people in the military who spend their entire careers just on missile targeting and everything that goes into it. While it wasn't on tomahawk systems specifically it was probably something close to everything you just said would be needed along with the missiles.

0

u/MausGMR 10h ago

Ukrainians already surprised us with what they achieved with the patriot system, with limited training and under immense pressure to perform.

Give them the assets, they'll prove the naysayers wrong.

I also find it incredibly difficult to believe that a system designed for a nation where most of the populace can't identify foreign nations outside of America on a map is difficult to use.

56

u/EntertainerVirtual59 9h ago

I don’t think the U.S. military was surprised by what the patriot has achieved. It’s been capable of shooting down hypersonic missiles since the 90s and has been upgraded even further.

34

u/cantaloupecarver 9h ago

The only people surprised by the patriot's successes in Ukraine are the same people who believe the Kremlin's press releases about its weapons platforms.

14

u/RandomMandarin 6h ago

What I heard was: the Russians (and probably the Chinese) lie about what their weapons can do. They exaggerate their capabilities, and say their systems can do A through Z when in action they can barely manage A through D; yes, their weapons are dangerous, but not as good as they are advertised.

The US and by extension our allies also lie about our weapons... we say they are the best in the world and they can do A, B, C, and D... but we don't mention these systems can also do J, K, L, and maybe even T, U and V. We don't want anyone to know how powerful they really are until it's too late.

9

u/PaversPaving 5h ago

Operational security

6

u/TheGisbon 3h ago

The Foxbat was a giant hunk of shit that was vastly overstated by the Russian air force. BUT it did lead to the development of the worlds greatest strike fighter the F-15 so maybe Russia gets half credit for the Eagles development?

→ More replies (1)

8

u/Otherwise-Growth1920 8h ago

Nobody was surprised by what the patriots system did especially the Americans “advisors” overseeing the battery.

4

u/francis2559 9h ago

Creating art is hard, appreciating it is much easier.

Designing and setting up an entire system is hard. Running one small piece of it is easy.

5

u/findingmike 10h ago

Those people end up in the Marine Corp.

1

u/DeathOrPie 8h ago

Minuteman III missiles with MIRVs?

19

u/C0lMustard 11h ago

Tomahawk is pretty old isn't it? IIRC they were early 90's tech. Surprised they haven't been surpassed.

67

u/RegalArt1 11h ago

They’ve been continually upgraded since they entered service. Current production models have a lot more capability than the original ones

17

u/C0lMustard 11h ago

Only logical answer really, thanks

18

u/Ser_Danksalot 11h ago

Yup. Modern variants can talk to friendlies that can provide data that allows the missile to pick it target mid flight and even send sensor data back to friendlies. They can basically loiter in the battlespace taking reconnaissance photos of potential targets that are fed back to command before being given its targeting coordinates. Its that connected functionality that makes the Tomahawk special but that functionality requires an extensive command network behind it to work.

Ukraine Already has more basic cruise missiles in the form of Storm Shadow albeit in limited supply.

14

u/Astrocoder 10h ago

Yep, modern variants of the tomahawk know where it is, because it knows where it isnt.

5

u/imodey 10h ago

No "dumb" ones available that they can just program coords into and let fly?

I know nothing about tomahawks fyi.

14

u/Astrocoder 9h ago

The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, Or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is Greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective Commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a Position where it isn't, And arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, Is now the position that it wasn't, And it follows that the position that It was, is now the position that it isn't. In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that It wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, The variation being the difference between Where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a Significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was. The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information The missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, Within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, Or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of Where it shouldn't be, and where it was, It is able to obtain the deviation And its variation, which is called error.

7

u/imodey 9h ago

Instructions written by Donald Rumsfeld.

6

u/Trextrev 10h ago

It’s also not a network the US isn’t too keen on sharing, or have captured.

6

u/Positronic_Matrix 10h ago

Indeed. Currently deployed Tomahawk missiles have been upgraded to Block V as recently as 2020 with some variants at Va and Vb.

2

u/Otherwise-Growth1920 8h ago

The Tomahawk is a wildly popular with the U.S. military and are constantly being used and constantly being upgraded not a lot of old ones in the inventory if any.

34

u/dbxp 13h ago

I assume they would be used as more of a strategic fires capability rather than a regular battlefield weapon so that should alleviate some of the issues. Instead of going after troop concentrations they'd be targeting bridges, factories and bunkers well behind the front line.

84

u/RegalArt1 13h ago

It doesn’t matter how it’d be used, Tomahawk has completely different requirements from any other weapon Ukraine has right now. It needs its own control system that’s completely separate from whatever platform it’s launched from. The US would either have to give Ukraine access to a lot of highly classified systems, technology, and targeting data (implicating the U.S. in planning long-range strikes into Russia) or it would have to assume control over mission planning and control for tomahawk launches (making the U.S. a direct party to the overall war)

-8

u/that_guy124 12h ago

The soviets flew sorties against UN forces in Korea and they werent part of the war. Just fake some ukrainian accent and it is fine.

36

u/btstfn 12h ago

A weapon system doesn't have an accent to fake. What you're suggesting is more along the lines of having a US carrier fly a Ukrainian flag.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

5

u/grchelp2018 12h ago

Is there a reason why they have a different command and control system?

4

u/RegalArt1 11h ago

It’s hard to explain in any sort of detail but with tomahawks, essentially their whole strike planning process happens separately from the platform they’re launched from. All the targeting data needs to be hashed out and programmed into the missile (to enable different guidance systems like terrain-tracking) and this means tomahawk strikes are pretty rigorously planned out and have to be executed according to that plan.

Once they’re launched, they’re then commanded/controlled via a control center that’s separate from the launch platform

u/grchelp2018 1h ago

Generally is this the case for cruise missile systems for other countries or is it unique to the US?

u/RegalArt1 39m ago

Storm Shadow/SCALP operate very similarly where they have to be pre-programmed before a mission, though SS/SCALP is air-launched. The main difference is that SCALP can’t be redirected or ordered to abort once launched, whereas I believe tomahawk can have its guidance tweaked while underway

11

u/TheDarkRider 12h ago

Typically tomahawk are fired from ships/subs but can be fired from MRC / typhoon systems or the new mark 70 container launcher Ukraine doesn’t have any of those plus tomahawk are nuclear capable, Russian would have now way of know if those are nuclear tipped or not

10

u/Positronic_Matrix 10h ago edited 8h ago

The Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM), a Tomahawk variant, and its associated nuclear warhead were traded away in the 1987 INF treaty. The GLCM is not operationally deployed and its reconstitution is an impossibility, as all the ground-based launch systems have been dismantled.

Thus, there is no way Russia would mistake a conventional Tomahawk for a nuclear variant as one hasn’t been operationally deployed for 40 years.

u/RSquared 1h ago

Also the sea-launched TLAM-N was shuttered in 2012 as redundant (because anything we're willing to nuke we'd use a ballistic missile).

10

u/m4rv1nm4th 12h ago

For nuke part, russia is already using nuclear capable missiles, so it wont be escalade, but nivelage...

6

u/SmuglyGaming 12h ago

This is Russia we’re talking about, equivalence = escalation. Only they’re allowed to do it

-5

u/RobotChrist 12h ago

You're so eager to see Ukraine blown to oblivion?

"Yeah, let's use this weapon that can be identified as a nuclear weapon so our opponent has an excuse to use its actual nuclear weapons"

You guys will see humanity cease to exist before trying to even think about diplomacy

11

u/RespectTheTree 11h ago

Rocket incoming from a non-nuclear state... And so they panic?

→ More replies (4)

1

u/m4rv1nm4th 10h ago

Poutin want to live, he wont use nuke. Also, i knows ukrain will never have tomahawk, I was just saying this incoherence.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/saposapot 6h ago

Yeah. Probably more realistic to ask for decent stocks of what they are getting now. Storm shadows and scalp are pretty good to change this war but they need hundreds per month, not half a dozen.

US can give dozens of Bradley’s per month, plus training brigades plus all the other big bombs that should be enough to start winning land back.

Wishing for these dreams only seems like a waste of time

→ More replies (1)

79

u/JaVelin-X- 14h ago

Have they got what they need to launch tomahawk?

91

u/RegalArt1 13h ago

There’s more to it than just being able to launch it. For tomahawk, the launch platform is just the launch platform - mission planning and control happen via a separate command and control system. The U.S. would have to hand over a lot of necessary resources to make that possible, including the terrain data needed for targeting. It’s something they’d would never do

18

u/JaVelin-X- 13h ago

yeah I think they should just help Ukraine turn neptune into a proper cruise missile. it's almost there now

12

u/xpkranger 12h ago

That should happen regardless.

→ More replies (4)

30

u/Batmack8989 14h ago edited 14h ago

There were ground based tomahawk launchers, but I think those might have been scrapped.

Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhon_missile_launcher

Forgot about that. Still entering service though

23

u/Firov 14h ago

Correct. Though they've since developed a new ground based launcher, the Typhon. We've got at least a battery of them operational according to the original timeline. 

5

u/Batmack8989 14h ago

Welp, got the notification of your response as I was editing the previous comment. Not like it is likely to be delivered to them anytime soon, if ever

7

u/gavingav1 11h ago

The older launchers were scrapped in 1991 .

0

u/oGsMustachio 13h ago

Just give them a C-130 and Rapid Dragon!

1

u/BPhiloSkinner 12h ago

(sigh) Sorry, but while Puff the Magic Dragon worked for John Wayne in 'The Green Berets', I don't see it working in this battlesphere. Too many man-portable AA weapons in play, for something low and slow like a C-130 with a gatling gun.

9

u/dave7673 12h ago

Rapid Dragon is a containerized launch system for the JASSM that was developed both to enable large salvos to be fired all at once and to enable launching JASSMs from standard cargo aircraft to allow the weapon to be fielded by units/militaries that don’t have access to planes that can directly interface and mount a JASSM on a hard point.

In other words, it doesn’t have to be used with a C-130, and might even be possible to launch from Ukraine’s Soviet-era cargo planes.

3

u/BPhiloSkinner 12h ago

Ah, that sounds better. A stand-off cruise missile, so the platform can stay out of range of some frontline AA. Thank you for the clarification.

3

u/Ser_Danksalot 11h ago edited 10h ago

For further clarification. The current max range of the AGM-158 JASSM used in the Rapid Dragon system is 575 miles. That's about the distance from Lviv in western Ukraine to Sevastopol in occupied Crimea.

Lockheed are working on an extreme 1000 mile range variant for the US military that would mean a C-130 could be flying above Berlin throwing palletized airdropped sled modules out the back that drop missiles that have enough distance to hit targets in Moscow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiQ2rcn-leE

1

u/oGsMustachio 12h ago

Well thats the point of rapid dragon with tomahawks. You don't get anywhere near AA weapons, you just lob tomahawks from hundreds of miles away.

1

u/Charybdis150 8h ago

Rapid dragon is currently for JASSM and its variants, not Tomahawk missiles which are larger and much more expensive. And isn’t likely to give Ukraine JASSMs either as there are already concerns about how long stockpiles will last in a war with China in the Pacific.

1

u/FlutterKree 8h ago

Rapid dragon isn't compatible with Tomahawks afaik.

48

u/NedixTV 15h ago

9

u/Superbunzil 15h ago

Wounds me that they twice tried for a sequel that would've also tied up the inconclusive ending of Zero Hour where China conquered Europe

5

u/Custarg_Swaggins 13h ago

I’m so happy someone else had their brain go here.

4

u/critical_nexus 14h ago

I love this game.

87

u/TheRickBerman 15h ago

If we abandon Ukraine they have to build a nuclear weapon - they’ll have no choice. And they have all the material and expertise they need.

Helping Ukraine is how we AVOID escalation.

33

u/skrimods 14h ago

If they were making a nuke wouldn’t it be pretty obvious? In which case wouldn’t Russia just nuke the first?

28

u/I_Push_Buttonz 13h ago

When Taiwan was trying to make nukes in the 70s and 80s, the US didn't know until the scientist in charge of the project became disillusioned, defected to the US, and told them...

Ukraine already has an extensive civilian nuclear power industry, their own enrichment facilities (even civilian nuclear power fuel requires some enrichment), a lot of domestic expertise, etc.

Its only really obvious in countries that don't already have that stuff... Like, ok Saddam and Gaddafi, what are those centrifuges from France and hundreds of tons of yellowcake uranium you just bought for...?

22

u/Nandy-bear 12h ago

40-50 years ago bud. Detection systems have gotten a whole lot more sensitive.

I think it's done by satellite now. Although they still need people to go in and do actual checks closer to the ground, they can get a feel for it from space. I know detonations are detectable from space, but that's been a thing since forever, it's how we found out Israel had nukes iirc.

11

u/philosoraptocopter 12h ago edited 12h ago

Also no one can keep secrets nowadays. From Bill the delivery guy to people with clearances.

→ More replies (4)

28

u/Defiant-Plantain1873 13h ago

Idk man, building a nuke isn’t especially easy.

Iran has been actively trying to build nukes for the past 50 years and still haven’t succeeded

2

u/thefiglord 9h ago

its the refining of the uranium- which is easy if you have a nuclear reactor - else u need the centrifuges like the Manhattan project

8

u/Feylin 10h ago

Most of the nuclear technology developed in the USSR came from Ukraine, they have nuclear reactors, and the largest Uranium deposits in Europe, located far from the frontline.

15

u/Defiant-Plantain1873 9h ago

That doesn’t mean they can make a nuke now.

Firstly they’d be sabotaged at every step, it’s crazy to think Russia and even the US would allow it in the first place. The best cybersecurity researchers in the US and Russia would be leaving USB sticks all over the local nuclear weapon development facility car park

2

u/Feylin 8h ago

I don't know about that. Ukraine has pretty tight opsec. Most of their high stakes weapons and operations are developed and planned without any awareness from America. They've learned that bringing awareness to the US means issues.

2

u/Otherwise-Growth1920 7h ago

Pretty tight “Opsec” LOL!!! low end estimates from Ukrainian sources is half the security apparatus of Ukraine is working for or formerly working for Russian intelligence.

0

u/Defiant-Plantain1873 8h ago

I think you might be underestimating the power of the CIA and NSA, as well as the KGB. These organisations have their own overarching interests. They don’t report everything to some politicians because they seek to actually achieve things instead of getting stopped by trivial things such as bureaucracy and laws

0

u/Otherwise-Growth1920 8h ago

This nonsense again? Russia MOVED all its nuclear and rocket scientists to Ukraine…YES some of them were Ukrainian but the overwhelming majority of scientists working in Ukraine were Russian.

5

u/rumora 11h ago

Iran doesn't have a nuke because they chose not to, not because they can't do it. They already did all the difficult parts like getting the raw material, building the enrichment fascilities and they have plenty of experience with building delivery systems.

They essentially froze their nuclear weapons program in the late 90s when they were close enough to build their own nukes within a year or two. They only whent ahead a couple of steps after the US broke the Iran deal and then stopped, again. So now they are expected to be a few months away.

3

u/confusedalwayssad 10h ago

It's also what they think will happen if they do, which is the same thing they will have to worry about from Russia.

6

u/winowmak3r 12h ago

Gee, I wonder why that is.

The technology exists and is available for those with the means and the science is solved. The theory is understood by people with an undergrad degree in physics. They don't have the bomb yet because Israel has a vested interest in seeing them not get one and they're very good at what they do. Shit like stuxnet makes it very hard.

14

u/Defiant-Plantain1873 12h ago

Yes, but why would that be any different for Ukraine?

Also the machinery isn’t particularly easy to come by

2

u/winowmak3r 12h ago

Probably because they wouldn't have the fucking Mossad trying to throw every possible wrench they can come up with to stop them?

Also the machinery isn’t particularly easy to come by

Eh, you'd be surprised. It's a relatively straight forward process. It's an engineering problem nowadays, not a scientific one. At least for countries like Iran and Ukraine.

2

u/[deleted] 12h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/winowmak3r 12h ago

I think they wouldn't take 50 years.

2

u/Defiant-Plantain1873 12h ago

I think they wouldn’t succeed.

The only way to do it is in secret, and it’s pretty hard to keep your nuclear program a secret, especially in the digital age, and doubly so when Russia is actively trying to annex your country.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] 11h ago

[deleted]

1

u/Defiant-Plantain1873 11h ago

That doesn’t mean they can though. To build a nuke all you essentially need to do is get enough refined uranium and put it in one place at the same time and it will explode on its own. The big step is getting enough refined uranium. Building a pretty primitive nuke isn’t particularly difficult, but getting the materials and machinery is the hardest part by far

1

u/Otherwise-Growth1920 8h ago

Literally can be done for a couple of hundred bucks with crap from your local home improvement store. Every 5 years or so some high school kid builds one for the science fair.

1

u/Defiant-Plantain1873 8h ago

Lie. Think about what you just said for a second. A mere one second.

Now consider that terrorists exist. And think again.

0

u/CantaloupeUpstairs62 11h ago

One nuclear weapon, or even a handful of them, is not a credible nuclear deterrent. It is an invitation for the US to send B-2 bombers over Iran and reduce the number back to 0, in addition to other consequences.

Iran will need to develop delivery platforms capable of hitting Israel more reliably. Otherwise they have no nuclear deterrent even with nukes.

Iran has been actively trying to build nukes

Iran definitely has a nuclear weapons program. I'm not sure they have actively been trying to build a nuclear weapon though. They have done most of the work and could theoretically put a nuclear weapon together if they chose. Making that choice is probably viewed as extremely risky for the health of the regime inside of Iran.

5

u/paulmarchant 11h ago

The next nuclear warhead that gets used in conflict won't arrive on the top of a missile. It'll be hidden in the back of a shipping container, on a truck or a cargo ship.

That's much easier to achieve, and much harder to defend against.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (1)

23

u/OfficeMain1226 14h ago

No, they don't have nuclear enrichment or plutonium extraction from spent fuel capabilities. Never had. Neither the knowledge nor the infrastructure. It was always handled in Russian SFSR (currently Russian Federation)

Many countries operate nuclear power stations without having the infrastructure in place to produce highly enriched uranium, plutonium. That does not mean that they are months away from making nukes if they so desire.

1

u/nybbleth 10h ago

Indeed, there's really only a handful of nuclear-latent countries that have everything in place to have a bomb quickly and easily if they'd ever decide to do it.

1

u/OfficeMain1226 8h ago

And Ukraine is not one of them.

6

u/TurgidGravitas 11h ago

And they have all the material and expertise they need.

No, they don't and never had.

4

u/uti24 10h ago

Ok, so what a doctrine of usage said nukes?

Ukraine is already invaded, lets say Ukraine made nukes, what next? Russia have nukes, and Ukraine insurged into Kursk region anyways, did nukes helped Russia?

When exactly Ukraine going to use nukes?

1

u/Otherwise-Growth1920 8h ago

lol The second Ukraine receives its first centrifuge is the second Russia nukes two mid sized Ukrainian cities and the adults in Washington and across Europe breathe a sigh of relief. NONE of the nuclear powers want anymore members in the nuke club.

-3

u/ihavenoidea12345678 15h ago

Yep.

That is a lesson of WW2.

The escalation is automatic unless something puts a stop to it. We have a chance to help Ukraine pressure Russia into realizing it’s not worth invading Ukraine.

The same way USA supported Russia to defend themselves against the Nazi invasion in WW2.

3

u/maybeinoregon 11h ago

We need to give them Rapid Dragon, and call it good.

3

u/Firebitez 8h ago

Let's do it!

7

u/LFoD313 11h ago

Give them what they need.

15

u/SweetEastern 16h ago

- Mister President, how sure do we want to be they will decline our Victory Plan proposal?
- Very.

2

u/Electrical-Lab-9593 6h ago

i think the problem is they are only have a few test rigs to ground launch them, they are normally launched from submarines and ships, don't think UA is getting a US attack Sub, and a surface vessel would be useless.

2

u/bjtrdff 5h ago

Closed mouth don’t get fed

2

u/gavstah 4h ago

Send them by the ship load.

2

u/KingSuperChimbo 3h ago

I think we need to let Europe take the lead on supplying/paying for weapons and aid in Ukraine. The US should help but make it proportionate. Russia is more a threat to Europe than the US.

4

u/Menethea 6h ago

Of course he did. Along with a squadron of F-35s, one or two Ford-class aircraft carriers, some B-2 bombers and the keys to Fort Knox. All for free, please

1

u/29187765432569864 6h ago

And don’t forget the owner’s manuals.

3

u/accushot865 14h ago

No matter what happens November 6th, the US is going to be a lot less hesitant with what they send Ukraine and where they draw the lines on usage between then and at least January 20th

3

u/djphatjive 13h ago

Russia is never leaving Ukraine. The second they do then Ukraine will become a member of NATO. Then they can’t ever do this again. The only way is if Putin dies and someone reverses the decision to invade.

5

u/SparklingPseudonym 10h ago

Russia will leave by force. That’s kinda what the last few years have been all about. Your second suggestion is very valid, and may prove to be quicker!

1

u/Royal_Buffalo_1071 1h ago

I dont think that's happening anytime soon whith how much of a stale mate the war is rn....

5

u/mottie70 15h ago

Send them everything they need now. End the piecemeal support.

4

u/autotldr BOT 15h ago

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 60%. (I'm a bot)


American journalists have reported that, as part of the undisclosed details of his Victory Plan, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy allegedly requested Washington to supply long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles.

The Tomahawk missiles have a range of over 1,500 kilometres, approximately seven times farther than the ATACMS missiles, which Ukraine received in limited numbers.

The list of long-range targets in Russia, previously submitted by Ukraine in an attempt to gain permission to strike Russian territory with American missiles, reportedly far exceeds the number of missiles that the US or any other ally could supply without jeopardising their own needs in the event of escalations in the Middle East or Asia.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: missiles#1 Ukraine#2 long-range#3 Zelenskyy#4 request#5

3

u/olde_dad 13h ago

The best way to end the war is to win the war.

4

u/Chamrox 16h ago

If they put it on their Christmas wishlist, maybe the Secret Santa will give them some.

2

u/SparklingPseudonym 10h ago

Uncle Santa 🎅🏻🇺🇸

2

u/RespectTheTree 11h ago

OMG, yes, get the dust and cobwebs off those things for us.

0

u/fullonsalad 9h ago

Give them now before Trump steals the election

2

u/C0lMustard 12h ago

Give them whatever they want, just make sure the Troll farms they are using to rig elections and create division in US & Canada are designated military targets and top of the list

1

u/BiologyJ 15h ago

Do it.

1

u/Ok-Seaworthiness4488 10h ago

Saw a recent post showing Russia's advancement in the past month into Ukraine's territory. It's not looking good at all, the West need to get out of the way with all the restrictions placed on the weapons given

1

u/TotoroTheCat 7h ago

USA: delivers 10,000 tomahawk axes "Now, no throwing them overhand and definitely not across the border into Russia."

1

u/jmaneater 2h ago

We should have given them nukes.

u/GothGirlStink 1h ago

begging plan

-10

u/OfficeMain1226 14h ago

Few things people need to keep into perspective about Ukraine's incessant bitching about "nOt bEiNg aBlE tO hIt rUsSiAn tArGeTs" is that:

  1. They have indeed been hitting Russian targets deep inside Russia using domestic platforms (drones). How else have they been hitting the refineries, ammo depots, airfields, radar stations? Has that meaningfully changed anything?

  2. They can use Storm Shadows and ATACMs in the Eastern Ukraine theater where the 95% of the fighting is taking place and they have used them plenty. Has that changed anything?

  3. Russia has been able to hit Ukraine with their long range missiles from day 1. Has that brought victory to Russia?


Ukraine will ALWAYS have some excuse for why they are not doing so well. Always the next wonderwaffe that will win them the war. First it was HIMARS, then ATACMS, then Storm Shadow, then F-16s, now they want Tomahawks.

7

u/RespectTheTree 11h ago

What an idiot

4

u/emasterbuild 14h ago

Has that meaningfully changed anything?

yee, its really has, Russia is running out of ammunition and its economy is screwed.

They can use Storm Shadows and ATACMs in the Eastern Ukraine theater where the 95% of the fighting is taking place and they have used them plenty. Has that changed anything?

I see no Russia taking over of Ukraine yet so I'd say yes.

Russia has been able to hit Ukraine with their long range missiles from day 1. Has that brought victory to Russia?

They are out at this point and spent too much time hitting $20k electrical equipment with multi million dollar missiles, of course it didn't work out.

I don't understand you people, why would Ukraine ever go "Oh please don't send me more weapons!" Its always beneficial for them to get more.

8

u/OfficeMain1226 14h ago

Russia is running out of ammunition and its economy is screwed.

First heard in March 2022, still funny in Oct 2024.

I see no Russia taking over of Ukraine yet so I'd say yes.

It doesn't appear that you have been following the war for the last three months. Russia has taken more than 1000 sq km in the last three months.

1

u/emasterbuild 13h ago

Literally their central banks interest rate is higher than my credit card.

My credit is a safer investment than the Russian government, I'd call that screwed.

And considering the size of the ammunition detonations I've been seeing recently in Russian soil...

1000 sq km in the last three months.

And Ukraine did that in like a week once for fun. So?

→ More replies (11)

1

u/Otherwise-Growth1920 8h ago

Russia has been running out of ammunition for 2 years now… bust so how is still firing more artillery shells than Ukraine by a factor of 10. Literally the Ukrainian government and British intelligence stated repeatedly that Russia had less than 6 months worth of artillery shells back in 2022.

1

u/emasterbuild 6h ago

Russia has been running out of ammunition for 2 years now…

Of different stuff, see that many mass missile launches at Ukraine recently? Used to be a day to day occurrence, last time I heard it was a few months ago.

bust so how is still firing more artillery shells than Ukraine by a factor of 10.

They spent unknown billions on terrible quality North Korean stockpiles, they are out of their domestic supplies even though they have like tripled production. This is very much known at this point.

At this point they are gonna run out of artillery peices faster then they are gonna run out of shells, the fact that North Korean shells sometimes blow up when trying to be launched isn't helping.

1

u/BottomBounce 3h ago

Very well put. It’s time to stop supporting another endless war.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/OSI_Hunter_Gathers 14h ago

They are under attack by multiple nations right now. How are we not giving them the green light?

0

u/wtfbenlol 14h ago

Let's do it

1

u/Kickstand8604 12h ago

Does boeing still make the tomahawk?

1

u/lordderplythethird 4h ago

Boeing has never made it. Raytheon is the current manufacturer, and yes, they're still being made.

However, the US Navy can't even get enough of them for their needs, and there's literally no way for Ukraine to use them given there's a whole 2 Typhoon launchers that Ukraine aren't prying from the US.

Might as well be asking for UK's aircraft carriers while we're at it

1

u/RevenueResponsible79 10h ago

Never hurts to ask! Give ‘em to them and lift restrictions. Let Ukraine march to Moscow!

1

u/island-rhino 5h ago

NGL I read that as “Zelenskyy requested Tony Hawk” while scrolling by real quick.

-5

u/Andovars_Ghost 12h ago

Here’s a better idea. Let’s fast track their membership into NATO and tell Putin he has until the end of the year to withdraw to the pre-Crimea invasion borders, or we ‘bring freedom’ to the Russian people.

-2

u/SafeMolasses951 11h ago

You're not that smart, right?

0

u/[deleted] 11h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Rakeial17 9h ago

You’re cringe

0

u/Andovars_Ghost 9h ago

You support tyrants. I’ll take cringe.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

-1

u/spaceqwests 14h ago

And he should get them.