US sends Ukraine Ground Launched Tomahawks

How much boiling seethe would this cause? Since Russia violated the INF treaty, they US is back to doing whatever it wants in this space again. If im not mistaken the US has a very large stockpile of these things, how much damage could these things do if we gave a few hundred to Ukraine?
Video related

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    tomahawks aren't real. US doesn't even have analogues for shahed&lancet.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Switchblades?

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't the UK only US ally to get tomahawks?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://eurasiantimes.com/japan-to-spend-billions-on-procuring-and-deploying-tomahawk/
      Japan just did like a month ago as well.
      Only nips and bongs allowed now.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How much boiling seethe would this cause?
    i hate how this is PrepHole now. war tourists destroyed this board.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >i hate how this is PrepHole now. war tourists destroyed this board.
      paid nafo shills will dissapear as soon as the ink is dry on the unilater surrender of the nation formerly known as 'the ukraine'
      the "useful idiots" will have outlived their use

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        in two weeks

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        How are you so bad at predictions though?

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sauce or GTFO.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    tomahawks are subsonic cruise missile, 90% will get intercepted just like the Russian subsonic cruise missile.
    Nothing impressive about subsonic cruise missile

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why does russia chimp out about them then?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Why does russia chimp out about them then?
        Russia was naive and "honest" in the 90's and actually got rid of theirs

        duplicitous nato-snakes want to raise the stakes to:
        >exchanging massive civilian casualties via cruise missile strikes
        because nato 'bet the farm' on beating Russia, and instead got cannibalized by quadruple felons, and essentially everything they intended to happen to Russia, happened to them instead

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ATACMS soon

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >ATACMS soon
            kek, 2 more weeks fella

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              More like Stykers in 2 more weeks

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >tomahawks are subsonic cruise missile, 90% will get intercepted just like the Russian subsonic cruise missile.

      yeah

      https://news.usni.org/2017/04/07/us-planned-executed-tomahawk-strike
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why does russia chimp out about them then?

        Tomahawks will get shot down by any decent AA. It's role is to deplete enemy AA.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why didnt Russia shoot them down in Syria then?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Have in mind that Syria is operating the same s300 as Ukraine and aside from not interception of tomahawks, not a single garden gnome plane has been taken down

          • 4 weeks ago
            RC-135 Rivet Joint

            We jammed them. We jammed radar all the time and we are very good at it. E-War is too complex and math related for the war tourists to grasp.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It's role is to deplete enemy AA
          what is mald. let me guess russian retards are also going to get their assed decoyed just like iraqis.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Tomahawk's role is to deplete AA
          Not really, that's just a side benefit of having made thousands and thousands of the things. Tommy has gotten a ton of upgrades over the years, it"s a pretty studly missile. Definitely more capable than those Kh101 junk heaps that Russians call a good cruise missile.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Awww listen to the bitterness now it has become obvious NATO needs to start spending some real money on fighting Russia

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You seem bitter everyone regards russia as a monkey with a knife rather than a respectable adversary, which is weird because you're most likely not russian.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                This thread doesn't feel that way, fantasising about sending tomahawks to Ukraine and that calibre of weaponry actually finally making Russia seethe implies differently

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                we should definitely send tomahawks and it would be funny if russia seethes about it

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              What country are you from?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      even if true the intelligence will provide how many to launch to to break through. N plus margin

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Tomahawk flies very low and keeps out of sight of SAM systems by using elevation changes in the land.
      Makes it vulnerable to MANPADs though, but so the vatniks have any good ones?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I hear the Strela isn't bad, supposedly the Ukies shot down a Russian cruise missile with one

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Even MANPAD will have trouble when this thing flies past just a hundred feet above the ground. Need to be extremely lucky to spot it quickly.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Subsonic cruise missiles fly low and usually undetected by radar unless they fly over it.

      Modern subsonic cruise missiles are programmed to take varying routes to avoid radars.

      At least the western ones.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      subsonics cruise missiles are actually very hard to intercept unless they fly directly over short range ad systems, because they fly so low

      literally the most success russia has had with missile attacks is with the kalibr due to this reason

  6. 4 weeks ago
    RC-135 Rivet Joint

    a few hundred? depends on flight profile and ISR data but they could dog leg over the black sea and hit targets from odd angles

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I thought ukraine was winning.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      in b4 the zero creativity Ukraine / Polish shills just reverse the flags and think they've made their own meme, like they did with the Guinea Pig one

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Explain to us again how R*ssoids losing the only major city they captured since the beginning of the invasion translates to them "winning"?

      >i hate how this is PrepHole now. war tourists destroyed this board.
      paid nafo shills will dissapear as soon as the ink is dry on the unilater surrender of the nation formerly known as 'the ukraine'
      the "useful idiots" will have outlived their use

      >as soon as the ink is dry on the unilater surrender of the nation formerly known as 'the ukraine'
      Aaaaany day now, zigger.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ukraine is winning

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      "Why do you want more money if you are rich?"
      "Why do you work out if you are strong?"

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why is Russia begging norks for artillery shells if they're winning?

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is there any legitimate reason to not send Ukraine the good toys? Would Russian chimp out and nuke if we send Ukraine wunderwaffen?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, they wouldn't. Just look back at all the systems that R*ssia said would cross the red line if delivered. Even the Patriot system is now gonna get sent there. The West really should just send it all at once now and get this entire thing over with. It's genuinely baffling that they don't. Maybe that R*ssian cope about the U.S. wanting to make this conflict last as long as possible so R*ssia throws as many working age men into the meatgrinder as they're willing to is true.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Maybe that R*ssian cope about the U.S. wanting to make this conflict last as long as possible so R*ssia throws as many working age men into the meatgrinder as they're willing to is true

        Pretty sure secretary of defense confirmed this is US strategy. Russians being Russians they probably thought he was lying somehow. Maybe they'll get the hint after a few million dead orcs, but probably not.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Pretty sure secretary of defense confirmed this is US strategy.
          Uh, I doubt that given how that'd look (especially to Ukrainians, more of whom would needlessly die as a result of delaying vital arms shipments).

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            US has always regarded all other countries as disposable pawns at the end of the day. Can't blame them, self interest and all.

            That's a strawman argument, the point (since I need to spoon feed apparently) is that the attitude of "lmao Russia getting trolled with 40 year old NATO scrap metal, how pathetic kekekekek" on PrepHole apparently ends today. Now this circlejerking about how much the Russians are seething needs to involve flights of fancy about tomahawks getting sent to Ukraine and imagining how much seething it might cause if it did happen.

            >No U strawman argument! >:^(
            >I want Ukraine sent all the latest and greatest weapons
            That's good! Finally you're showing the Russian Military the respect it deserves, fucking "oh we can easily defeat them with outdated weapons and it will cost us basically nothing" that's just arrogance. A lesson PrepHole learned today lmao.

            Tomahawk dates from '83.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              M1 Abrams is from '80 but tell me that's not the cutting edge in tank technology for NATO

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The name dates back to '83. Tomahawks themselves are like the B-52 of cruise missiles by now. NuHawk's LO nose makes my PP hard.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                M1 Abrams is from '80 but tell me that's not the cutting edge in tank technology for NATO

                >The name dates back to '83.
                True, but nobody's thinking of sending the cutting edge ones

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                IIRC the only ones left are Block IV an V. All the IIIs were supposed ro be upgraded or scrapped.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Sure and yes, you CAN blame them but the point is that they're usually less blasé about it. They pretend instead they're goodie two shoes doing everything out of a love for humanity and pure, unadulterated altruism.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Enough to retake Soledar in 2 weeks, I'm sure

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is this thread the reason there's been so much shilling?

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Oh can you hear that? It's only the narrative changing from
    >Lmao Russia is getting defeated on the cheap with only NATO'S scrapyard being sent to Ukraine to now
    To
    >REEEEE SEND EVERYTHING TO UKRAINE I WANT THE RUSSIANS TO SEEEEEEETHE!
    What a glorious day.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't understand the correlation of wanting more material and equipment for your soldiers and losing. By this definition, the fact that russia is making more T-90m's means they're desperate or the fact that the US is making a 6th generation fighter means they're becoming weaker.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Way to miss the point chief, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's intentional to act like you don't understand the point being made.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      why are you pretending you've ever seen a western pro-ukraine poster advocate against sending more armaments to ukraine? you haven't

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's a strawman argument, the point (since I need to spoon feed apparently) is that the attitude of "lmao Russia getting trolled with 40 year old NATO scrap metal, how pathetic kekekekek" on PrepHole apparently ends today. Now this circlejerking about how much the Russians are seething needs to involve flights of fancy about tomahawks getting sent to Ukraine and imagining how much seething it might cause if it did happen.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          strawman argument
          we should send f22s and deport you to russia while we're at it

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No U strawman argument! >:^(
            >I want Ukraine sent all the latest and greatest weapons
            That's good! Finally you're showing the Russian Military the respect it deserves, fucking "oh we can easily defeat them with outdated weapons and it will cost us basically nothing" that's just arrogance. A lesson PrepHole learned today lmao.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >showing the Russian Military the respect it deserves
              hahaha

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          But there is no contradiction here, vatniggoid. Yes, NATO scraps were enough to grind the "2nd army in the world"'s attack to a fucking standstill and even recapture large swathes of territory for them. And yes, we ALSO want to see Ukies get more than scraps so they can not only force a stalemate and start an offensive once a season but instead turn all R*ssoids left in Ukraine into pigslop and push their fleshy remains into the sea, from Kherson to Crimea to Azovstal to the Donbas.

          The only one seeing an incongruity here is your turd world ass.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A standstill you say? But Ukrainian infrastructure has methodically been destroyed all over the country for months now.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It doesn't really seem like that's had an effect on Ukrainian operations though. Its just pissed off the civilians.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              it's anudda desert storm

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Ah, yes, strategic bombing, that definitely worked throughout history! Remember how it made the British surrender during WWII? Or the Germans? Or the Japanese? Or the Koreans? Or the Vietnamese?

              Dumbasses really are doomed to repeat history, huh?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you calling the Russians dumbasses, the entire western military apparatus for nearly a century of war, or both?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Both:

                Also:

                >If it achieves nothing then why does the US target infrastructure?
                Does it nowadays? They didn't mass bomb/destroy civilian infrastructure during their last three wars. Military infrastructure? Sure. Dumb, irrelevant shit like power plants and random apartment blocks? No.

                This is DOUBLY retarded in Ukraine because their arms supplies and such aren't domestically sourced so hurting their economy does jackshit given that they get their shit from the West at this point.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >A standstill you say?
              Yes. Apparently you have to have it explained to you that leveling civilian housing doesn't actually advance the frontline. They could reduce Kyiv to a smouldering ruin à la Azovstal and it still wouldn't them any closer to actually conquering Ukraine.

              It's a waste of what little long-range munitions they've left and mainly done for domestic consumption, apparently. To keep the popular discontent from bubbling over for another couple weeks. R*ssoids love seeing other people suffer given their own daily misery and bombing children's playgrounds and maternity words fits the bill perfectly for these pathetic sadists.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Lmao someone's been gobbling down their daily propaganda rations

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >no rebuttal
                I accept your concession.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Please explain to us how Ukies (maybe) losing one (1) village translates to R*ssia suddenly no longer getting their ass raped in Ukraine? Are you aware of the concept of Pyrrhic victories? Those are the only kind R*ssia has seen since summer. Half a garbage dump here, a dilapidated pigsty there, that's not how you win a war of conquest. You know R*ssia fucking up big time if even their milbloggers are asking why the fuck they're wasting most of their assault troops on these who-gives-a-shit locations.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You got it all wrong. We want to see Ukraine get fancier toys because it's boring seeing the same old videos of Ukrainians dropping grenades on ruskie conscripts with drones. I want to see JDAMS and cruise missiles wiping out huge scores of vatniks.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Again though that's healthy to admit the current outdated weapons being sent weren't effective enough against the Russian Military for your liking, sure is it as memeworthy for NATO to be handing over ALL it's weapons and spending some serious coin to provide you the entertainment you're looking for? No. But I'm sure the "we're defeating Russia with no effort or money required" meme was fun while it lasted, but I'm sure there's still laughs to be had for you all while living in reality as well.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          metacope

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm comfortable with the idea of Russia losing now that it's obvious NATO and PrepHole are willing to act like tryhards to achieve it, it was the arrogance of thinking defeating Russia was going to be an inexpensive cakewalk is what I took issue with and clearly PrepHole woke up to that reality today with threads like this.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              yeah i like this narrative you've come up with. PrepHole wasn't saying "we should send the really good stuff to ukraine" until today. now we've realized it's all over and we desperately need to send MBTs and ATACMS and so on now that ukraine is on the verge of collapse. no one advocated any of this before today.

              IT'S OVER

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's good, here's me thinking PrepHole was delusional and telling me that Russia will lose to NATO's scrapyard until literally yesterday. But I must have been wrong, they must have actually been saying
                >TOMAHAWKS NOW! UKRAINE CANT WIN WITHOUT THEM!
                the entire time, silly me.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                obviously it is losing to nato's scrapyard. i think it would be cool to see it lose considerably faster to f16s and abrams and tomahawks.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not very memeworthy to win that way though is it? Kind of implies you see Russia as a genuine adversary to spend that kind of money to win this in any reasonable amount of time.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                i don't respect russia at all and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well get on the phone to your representative tell them not to waste the money on Russia :3

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why? Russians dying is good and we"re not poor like you.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Then accept you do somewhat respect Russia as an adversary if you want the war to end sooner and you want lots of money spent to achieve that :3

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Lots of money spent
                It was already spent lmao. Also no we still dom't respect you. We're not poor. Spending money to do things just doesn't mean to us what it means to you.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Then accept you do somewhat respect Russia as an adversary if you want the war to end sooner and you want lots of money spent to achieve that :3

                beg harder

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's not me begging you to make a decision, it's reality lmao

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's good, here's me thinking PrepHole was delusional and telling me that Russia will lose to NATO's scrapyard until literally yesterday. But I must have been wrong, they must have actually been saying
                >TOMAHAWKS NOW! UKRAINE CANT WIN WITHOUT THEM!
                the entire time, silly me.

                brown samefag

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The outdated weapons have killed 100,000 Russian monkeys so far. I would personally argue that it says more about how shit the Russian military is than how awesome the weapons are, but still.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The people who told me Russia can be defeated by ancient weapons also told me they've lost half their initial force
            And yet Russia has just captured a town Ukraine was quite adamant about not losing, c'est la vie.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >a town
              That's one way to upsell it, I guess.

              >quite adamant
              They're "quite adamant" about not losing ANY town. It's not special in that regard.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Russia has just captured a town
              Was it worth it? Lol

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Judging by the PrepHoleope, absolutely.

                It doesn't really seem like that's had an effect on Ukrainian operations though. Its just pissed off the civilians.

                If it achieves nothing then why does the US target infrastructure?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                damn i'm supposed to respect THIS?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're the one who ostensibly believes the current supply of weapons aren't effective enough to win the war as quickly as you'd like, so clearly you already do lmao

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                enough of the pleading tone

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If you've got an issue, here's a tissue

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If it achieves nothing then why does the US target infrastructure?
                Does it nowadays? They didn't mass bomb/destroy civilian infrastructure during their last three wars. Military infrastructure? Sure. Dumb, irrelevant shit like power plants and random apartment blocks? No.

                This is DOUBLY retarded in Ukraine because their arms supplies and such aren't domestically sourced so hurting their economy does jackshit given that they get their shit from the West at this point.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The US did bomb infrastructure in their last three wars, they did it in Yugoslavia, they did it in the war on terror as a prelude to invasion and they did it in Libya and Syria.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The US did bomb infrastructure
                Curious how you quietly dropped the "mass" and "civilian".

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Implying.

                >no rebuttal
                I accept your concession.

                Nothing to rebuke, that's just a load of random unsubstantiated accusations.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >just a load of random unsubstantiated accusations
                sounds familiar

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Dumb, irrelevant shit like power plants and random apartment blocks? No.

                desert storm is literally infamous because of how badly the u.s smashed the power and sanitation grid in iraq.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, the U.S ''doesnt attack power stations'' so much that they have developed a specific bomb especially for the job, that was used extensively in both Iraq and Serbia.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite_bomb

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq had a very modern, concentrated electrical
                power system. The majority of power came from 19 generating stations which
                had a capacity of 9,500 megawatts. One unusual feature of the system was
                the large amount of reserve capacity available; in 1990 the peak load only
                accounted for slightly more than 50 percent of the available capacity.55 Dur
                ing Desert Storm attacks on electric power accounted for 215 sorties, or about
                1 percent of the total US sorties flown.56 These attacks virtually eliminated
                any ability of the Iraqi national power system to generate or transfer power
                by reducing the generating capacity to less than 300 megawatts, and the
                transmission ability to one-quarter of the prewar capability.57 Further, a
                Department of Defense study notes that “the synergistic effects of losing
                primary electrical power sources in the first few days of the war helped
                reduce Iraq’s ability to respond to coalition attacks.

                >There is little doubt, on the other hand, of the impact of the loss of power in
                Iraq on the civilian population. The civilian effects from the loss of power
                were quite severe, including the loss of power to hospitals, the breakdown of
                water purification systems, and damage to sewage systems, which then con
                taminated the water supply. One report attributed 70,000 deaths to this
                indirect collateral damage caused by a lack of electricity.60 The negative po
                litical backlash of such reports is unquantifiable but nevertheless real, and
                must be considered in future air campaign planning.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Validate me! I exist!
          No. Respect is earned. Here I will set out some criteria for Russia to earn my respect:
          >Full control of Kyiv
          >Full control of Lviv
          >Air supremacy
          >Kill/loss ratio > 1.2 for both humans and vehicles
          >Widespread use of night optics
          >Widespread use of a tank that isn't based on a T-72
          >Pallets

          Crowing about a village no foreigner had even heard of until this week doesn't cut it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay well to prevent those from happening NATO is starting to send far more serious weaponry and PrepHole seemingly wants Ukraine to be equipped as well as the US Military, actually making those achievements even more impressive than you probably think.

            Will it any of those feats you've listed happen? We'll just have to wait and see.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Is this post written by an AI or something? It's so weirdly worded.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Putin would shit bricks. These things would accelerate Russia's defeat considerably.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Giving Ukraine, ground launched Tomahawks would probably make Russia pull back to its own borders and cease offensive operations.

    Ground launched Tomahawk were nuclear armed. Didn't have conventional warheads counterparts like the ship launched Tomahawk.

    The BGM-109G ground launched Tomahawk had a 150-kiloton yield warhead.

    I would love to give Ukraine a few dozen of them but sadly they took ground launched Tomahawks out of service over 30 yrs ago.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fuck you OP, you got my hopes up

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    0 chance of it happening. Typhon isn't even complete yet because they want to have it sling SM-6s too along with ESSMs

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russia will continue bringing knives to a gun fight they started and crying about it because Russians are gays that's why they lost their own civil war to garden gnomes

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *