Asking for a fren.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (21)
sorted by:
Hey, while we're on the topic of plausible reasons, explain why it's an S-300 missile, which is an anti-aircraft missile. They are solid fuel propelled which means they fire and the engine burns until depleted. The missile has a speed of Mach 6 and maximum range of the standard missile is 150 km (93 miles). Google it yourself. You can't think of a plausible scenario where it hits a Poland border town? It was fired from the rear which is only place you'll find S-300s operating anymore, defending a massive (100 cruise missiles) strike to the rear.
Not trying to fight or be obtuse, but. Give me a break.
It's still an FF, tho, it's them very obviously inventing a BS excuse, but, it's clearly an accident they are seizing on.
So.. assuming this missile flies towards the russian missile its trying to intercept - which is entirely the premise you have outlined with regard its intended operation.. how again does it end up in Poland when the russian missile is targeted at ukraine targets?
For your assertion that its accidental to be true, all of the following points would have to be true:
1 - it would have to be genuinely intended to intercept the missile from russia
2 - the russian missile has entirely overflown ukraine and is targeted either in poland or something even further away like germany. For no reason at all.
3 - ukraine is all 'hey we are defending ourselves from a threat that already passed us by'. Which is quite the curious defensive strategy I'm sure you agree.
The 'its not rocket science' concept still fits when it comes to missiles I guess!
The timing with Trumps announcement (and Ws, and husseins) you are also writing off as mere happenstance? Quite a lot of ducks in a row there.
Great analysis, let's run this down.
First, the cruise missiles aren't necessarily fired from Russia. MOST of the cruise missiles fired in the war have been fired from the Russian navy, ships in the Black Sea, so the missiles would be coming from the S or SE.
Cruise missiles do not fly straight to their targets. They are programmed with routes that wind around known AA and other troop concentrations, as cruise missiles can be shot down by alert manpad teams watching for them along expected routes. We have seen video of them doing this. So the missiles would wind their way to their targets, and, as long as they aren't sufficiently detected or engaged, no one minds if they take an extra 40 minutes of flying time to reach their targets.
2 - No, the S-300 missile would fly most of its range unpowered. The solid rocket propellant accelerates the missile to mach 6, then then the missile continues to engage its target for as long as it has enough energy to stay in the air. If it misses its target, either by failing to successfully lock on target after launch, or missing the target, the missile will fly straight if it doesn't find any new targets.
The S-300 missiles are "command-guidance system" which means they are actively fed target information from the central radar station for the first 25nm of its launch, meaning that the missile is on its own if it misses the target. If there is a guidance failure (missiles fail all the time for various reasons) the missile would just continue until it runs out of energy and fall. It does not have a self-destruct mechanism.
3 - Ukraine is referring to the cruise missile threat, correct. The missiles came in a wave
Haha - rocket science - yes, these are rockets in the traditional sense. That's how they are so deadly. The rockets are actual rockets, and they go fast, FAST. They hit mach 6 within 25s after launch
I personally don't believe the missile incident would have had to happen timed perfectly with Trump's speech... just in the few days. They run so much media, they could push this if it was within a few days, IMO
Just my two cents, but, I know these systems and how they're deployed/used on the battlefield intimately.
Quick question: why are you and a few others working so hard to establish that it was all an "accident"? An "accidental" false flag... just coincidentally timed to coincide with President Trump's announcement (which they were afraid would be part of declas, and needed to counteract).
Give me a break.
No no, wait, I'm saying the incident itself could be an accident, it doesn't matter. I'm saying that Zelynskyy is clearly not interested in what actually happened. He desperately wants to blame Russia no matter what. Look at what the other leaders of other countries are saying, tho. They don't believe the NATO story.