US explains why it is not shooting down missiles over Ukraine as it does over Israel.

TheOne@lemmy.blahaj.zone to politics @lemmy.world – 88 points –
US explains why it is not shooting down missiles over Ukraine as it does over Israel
pravda.com.ua
35

Cowards. The Ukrainians are laying down their lives in defense of Europe and they can't even get this, but a genocidal maniac who would sacrifice millions to remain in power gets all the aid he wants.

IDK, this seems like the DoD actually doing their jobs (for once).We've given tons of anti-missile systems to ukraine. Deploying THAAD to a conflict where we can't actively deploy US troops alongside it is a serious intelligence risk, and it doesn't fill a particular role thats missing in Ukraine. Russia hasn't been using ballistic missiles of the size THAAD would even be effective against. Patriot, MANPAD, aerial launched and even hera systems have been extremely effective, and NATO continues to supply those systems for Ukraine.

19 more...
19 more...

Ukraine has recieved several anti missile systems from the US, but do not man them as in Isreal. I suppose if US Troops were killed by the Russians in an attack, then all kinds of escalating shit would happen.

What kind if escalation does putin have though? Hes bombing civilians, schools and hospitals. And the nUcLeAr saber rattling has been used so much the saber is all dull.

But he's not bombing US hospitals. Read NATO, Article 5

Article 5 requires co-defense an attack occurs in the territory of NATO nations (or places occupied by members when NATO was created). It doesn't cover US forces getting put in harms way and attacked in a non-member country. It doesn't even cover troops getting attacked in Hawaii.

Which is the reason NATO joined the US is Afghanistan

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this comment, but NATO was in Afghanistan because the US mainland was attacked, not because some soldiers got attacked in a foreign country.

NATO joined the US in Afghanistan well after 9/11. Fact is NATO will respond to the attack of any member's forces, if in their homeland or not. At sea, for instance.

That's just not true. These aren't arcane pieces of information, they're bureaucracy from an international treaty. You can just go read the NATO treaty, which defines what an attack is (Article 6). Or go read the history of the NATO in Afghanistan. Article 5 was invoked for the first and only time on September 12th not because troops got hurt later. Remember how the same thing didn't happen in any of America's other wars?

NATO will respond to attacks on forces at sea, but only in the North Atlantic or Mediterranean. It's not a general "if you hurt an American soldier anywhere" treaty.

But escalating with Iran is fine I guess?

Iran would be destroyed by US Airpower. They know it.

And then what? Iraq got destroyed by air power, Afghanistan got destroyed by air power. Now both countries are hot beds of terrorism and instability.

No, Afghanistan was not about air power. Iran has a lot to lose and could lose it very easily.

Yeah, but the Taliban or Iraq are not able to mass manufacture drones to sell to Russia.

And they're not a nuclear power. Like, pointedly not. We made real sure of that.