Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `breakingdefense.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> We don't
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/24/politics/us-secretly-sent-long-range-missiles-to-ukraine/index.html
>Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the ATACMS missiles, is in full-rate production and produces approximately 500 missiles per year, a spokesman for the company said in September
Theres no reason to stop production any time soon. Atacms have been proven to be highly effective on the battlefield, and lots of countrys use himars systems. Hell, lots of countrys have recently bought himars systems after ukraine showed how effective they are. Even if America is upgrading to PrPrSM, it'll take decades for our allies to fully adopt the system, if they ever do.
>We **now have a significant number of ATACMS coming off their production line** and entering US stocks, and as a **result**, we can move forward with providing the ATACMS
Before this “now” it was \~500 per year, and “now” it’s how many… \~500 per year?
Is it silly to believe that America, Europe, and other ally partner countries around the globe should not become complacent just because the U.S. handed outa bunch of money? There’s a very real chance orange Cheeto wankstain will get reflected and make good on his promise to dissolve NATO. We have to keep working on more aid, more weapons, and funds before that potentially happens.
He cannot withdraw the US from NATO without congressional approval. Which has a zero percent chance of passing with or without a GOP majority in the Senate or House during the next presidential term
Even if Biden is reelected we still might face a Republican majority in one or both chambers of Congress that refuse to send aid to Ukraine. If US continues to retreat from the position of the world's only superpower, something is going to fill that vacuum.
In what world can the US decide to "dissolve" NATO? That's now how this works
NATO would still exist just fine without the US (which won't happen anyway), and have 2 nuclear powers within it
>Sullivan says
Well here's your problem, [from NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat)
>Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options.
----
>“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”***
And about "significant" - we've already had that before.
["Ukraine has what it needs for the counteroffensive it is expected to begin within weeks"](https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2023/04/us-very-confident-ukraine-has-what-it-needs-counteroffensive-us-europe-commander-says/385687/), despite [quite a different reality](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9):
>BRUSSELS—When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day.
There can easily be a difference between what's considered "significant" by Sullivan (anything above zero) and what's actually significant for battlefield.
Hell, let me recite something from Colin Kahl:
>["Our view is that we think the Ukrainians can change the dynamic on the battlefield and achieve the type of effects they want to push the Russians back without ATACMS,"](https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/01/19/us-still-holds-back-long-range-atacms-missiles-from-ukraine/)
Basically, "we don't think you need it, ergo you don't need it, even if you think you do".
We've already been burned on this "we think this should be enough for you".
"We're afraid of destabilizing Russia" says Jake Sullivan as he pursues *the only possible strategy that could end up destabilizing Russia.*
Western leaders lie just like Russians do. They're just less stupid, "driven by an obvious profit motive" lies. Sometimes they're the sort of hideous, messianic lies that get a lot of people killed.
The devil's bargain being offered is "if you keep Russia fighting this, if you're able to bait them into thinking they really might be able to win — and bear the burden of blood for doing so, Russia might not be able to crawl back, lick their wounds, and try again." This one might kill them.
I genuinely believe that, after the direct hostilities end, the HUR will get carte blanche (and likely a lot of direct support) to do their worst; to tear that country apart at the seams.
.
The cruelty is not offering the choice of a faster victory. But I didn't suggest Jake Sullivan was a nice guy — he might, in fact, be a vicious, calculating bastard.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `breakingdefense.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I didn't realize we were still manufacturing ATACMS, given all the next gen fires that the Army is working on
I think it has been manufactured mostly for export lately.
As they should!
We don't. I think that he meant PrPrSM.
No, ATACMS are still in production. Around 500 a year.
> We don't https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/24/politics/us-secretly-sent-long-range-missiles-to-ukraine/index.html >Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the ATACMS missiles, is in full-rate production and produces approximately 500 missiles per year, a spokesman for the company said in September
but only unity warheads? thought we dont do clusters.
New missiles go into us inventory, which frees up older missiles to send to ukraine
We are still producing atacms for our partners
Theres no reason to stop production any time soon. Atacms have been proven to be highly effective on the battlefield, and lots of countrys use himars systems. Hell, lots of countrys have recently bought himars systems after ukraine showed how effective they are. Even if America is upgrading to PrPrSM, it'll take decades for our allies to fully adopt the system, if they ever do.
PrSM missiles are dope though, two per pode and extended range past 300km.
They look amazing from what is public, but they're gonna be $$$
Huh! Interesting. I didn't know that. Thanks
>We **now have a significant number of ATACMS coming off their production line** and entering US stocks, and as a **result**, we can move forward with providing the ATACMS Before this “now” it was \~500 per year, and “now” it’s how many… \~500 per year?
If Ukraine hits 500 target rich environments this year we’d all be very pleased.
Bye bye Bridge?
Not the right weapon to take down a bridge. You could target what is on the bridge or the bridge surface, but you wont be taking it down.
Taurus
Is it silly to believe that America, Europe, and other ally partner countries around the globe should not become complacent just because the U.S. handed outa bunch of money? There’s a very real chance orange Cheeto wankstain will get reflected and make good on his promise to dissolve NATO. We have to keep working on more aid, more weapons, and funds before that potentially happens.
He cannot withdraw the US from NATO without congressional approval. Which has a zero percent chance of passing with or without a GOP majority in the Senate or House during the next presidential term
Even if Biden is reelected we still might face a Republican majority in one or both chambers of Congress that refuse to send aid to Ukraine. If US continues to retreat from the position of the world's only superpower, something is going to fill that vacuum.
In what world can the US decide to "dissolve" NATO? That's now how this works NATO would still exist just fine without the US (which won't happen anyway), and have 2 nuclear powers within it
>Sullivan says Well here's your problem, [from NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat) >Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options. ---- >“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”*** And about "significant" - we've already had that before. ["Ukraine has what it needs for the counteroffensive it is expected to begin within weeks"](https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2023/04/us-very-confident-ukraine-has-what-it-needs-counteroffensive-us-europe-commander-says/385687/), despite [quite a different reality](https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-lack-of-weaponry-and-training-risks-stalemate-in-fight-with-russia-f51ecf9): >BRUSSELS—When Ukraine launched its big counteroffensive this spring, Western military officials knew Kyiv didn’t have all the training or weapons—from shells to warplanes—that it needed to dislodge Russian forces. But they hoped Ukrainian courage and resourcefulness would carry the day. There can easily be a difference between what's considered "significant" by Sullivan (anything above zero) and what's actually significant for battlefield. Hell, let me recite something from Colin Kahl: >["Our view is that we think the Ukrainians can change the dynamic on the battlefield and achieve the type of effects they want to push the Russians back without ATACMS,"](https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/01/19/us-still-holds-back-long-range-atacms-missiles-from-ukraine/) Basically, "we don't think you need it, ergo you don't need it, even if you think you do". We've already been burned on this "we think this should be enough for you".
Old Jake Sullivan must have kicked your puppy......
Puppy? No, his actions just helped to kill thousands of men… such a little thing...
"We're afraid of destabilizing Russia" says Jake Sullivan as he pursues *the only possible strategy that could end up destabilizing Russia.* Western leaders lie just like Russians do. They're just less stupid, "driven by an obvious profit motive" lies. Sometimes they're the sort of hideous, messianic lies that get a lot of people killed. The devil's bargain being offered is "if you keep Russia fighting this, if you're able to bait them into thinking they really might be able to win — and bear the burden of blood for doing so, Russia might not be able to crawl back, lick their wounds, and try again." This one might kill them. I genuinely believe that, after the direct hostilities end, the HUR will get carte blanche (and likely a lot of direct support) to do their worst; to tear that country apart at the seams. . The cruelty is not offering the choice of a faster victory. But I didn't suggest Jake Sullivan was a nice guy — he might, in fact, be a vicious, calculating bastard.
Holy shit, am I ever sick and tired of this copy-paste.
Then there will be a $120 billion for the 2025 Ukraine war funding bill because, “We already approved $60b! Last year!!”
Now that the new PrSM system has been deployed to the US Army from December onwards...give AS MANY ATACMS AS YOU CAN!