Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

War in Ukraine shattering ‘superiority’ of US-made weaponry: Responsible Statecraft 

Al Mayadeen | May 29, 2024

While critics claim that technologically complex US weapons produce unreliable systems in limited quantities because of cost, a report by Responsible Statecraft proves otherwise, stating that the failure of US weapons in Ukraine is much due to the military’s lack of adequate testing.

Successive “game-changing” systems like the Switchblade drone, the M-1 Abrams tank, Patriot air defense missiles, the M777 howitzer, the Excalibur guided 155 mm artillery round, the HIMARS precision missile, GPS-guided bombs, and Skydio drones with artificial intelligence were all transferred to Ukraine. That is when the show of strength began.

For instance, the $60,000 limited-quantity Switchblade drone didn’t work against armored targets, and Ukrainian troops chose instead $700 Chinese commercial models bought online, RS reported.

The $10 million Abrams tank kept malfunctioning and was soon taken out of combat. Russia was able to capture at least one, which they added to a display of NATO weaponry in a Moscow park alongside an M777 howitzer and other items. This stands as a plain display of mockery toward the US and its so-called military superiority.

The M777 cannon, known for its accuracy, proved to be too vulnerable in rough conditions. Its barrels frequently wore out and needed replacement in Poland, while its 155 mm ammunition has been suffering from short supply.

May 29, 2024 - Posted by | Corruption, Science and Pseudo-Science | ,

1 Comment »

  1. The rules of war, or international humanitarian law (as it is known formally) are a set of international rules that set out what can and cannot be done during an armed conflict.

    The rules of war are universal. The Geneva Conventions (which are the core element of IHL) have been ratified by all 196 states. Very few international treaties have this level of support.

    In the post-9/11 era, the United States government has used the term “co-belligerent” to apply to certain groups connected to al Qaeda.[12] It has done so largely as a means of tying authority to use force against those groups to a 2001 congressional statute, the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, which Congress passed in the aftermath of 9/11 to authorize the President to use force against the group that had attacked the United States and those who harbored them, understood to be al Qaeda and the Taliban.[13]

    Since February 2022 Belarus is described as co-belligerent of Russia in the Russo-Ukrainian War

    The case of nationals of a co-belligerent State is simpler. They are not considered to be protected persons so long as the State whose nationals they are has normal diplomatic representation in the belligerent State or with the Occupying Power.

    ***********

    In other words, by supplying weapons that are used to attack Russia, in Russia, the citizens of US, UK, France and any NATO country have put themselves in a state of war against the Russian Federation. They, not Russia declared war. Under international Law Russia has the right to attack and destroy any assets or citizens of those countries as an act of self-defence.

    Like

    peterjohnarnold's avatar Comment by peterjohnarnold | May 30, 2024 | Reply


Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

« Previous | Next »