>>62894634
>Muh Vietnam.
This is it. This is THE reason why the American political/expert class has been handling this war like the braindead imbeciles with McDonald's drive-thru education they are.
This war isn't Vietnam (an arbitrary war of choice in some distant overseas land) from the Russian point of view, it's literally WW3 where the price of losing is Russia disappearing as a concept.
That's why anyone who ever uses terms like "escalation," or "unsustainable losses," or "cost" in regard to the whole affair is mouthbreathing fucking cretin.
There is no fucking escalation, Russia is already throwing 100% of what they're physically able to throw. If they're not using nukes already, it's because they will never fucking use nukes, because they can't for whatever reason.
There is no fucking sustainability, you "sustain" an existential war until you win or stop existing.
The entire strategy of feeding Ukraine crumbs hoping to keep it from losing long enough until Russia gets bored and goes home, while avoiding "escalation" lest Russian gloves will come off was conceived by mental six-year-olds who have zero understanding of how the world actually works.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/k/

Thread:

How would the US military handle losing this amount of equipment?