Comments by "Chef Chaudard" (@chefchaudard3580) on "What is a long-range missile? – The hysteria about ATACMS and Storm Shadow" video.

  1. Hey, we are talking of Russia, here. Maybe the seventh army in the world, an economy the size of Spain! Not some superpower the world must listen to! USSR died decades ago!
    2
  2. That it is BS. Anybody can type GPS coordinates in a computer.
    1
  3.  @peturadunga  i suppose that the supply of the missiles included training and tools… so what?
    1
  4.  @peturadunga  using a missile is not rocket science… well, it is 😁 but there is nothing that can’t be learned by clever people in a few months. All they have to know is how to prepare the missile, check it, set the coordinates of the target and voila. The missile relies on its inertial system and GPS reception to hit the correct location. There is a video here on YouTube of some blokes learning how to do that, and they are not high end engineers.
    1
  5.  @peturadunga  i worked in there, yes. Not ATACMS but similar domain… but maybe you’ll have an answer from APN?
    1
  6.  @peturadunga  western countries giving information to Ukraine is no secret, nor new. France declared they give free access to French satellites to Ukraine several years ago. NATO also declared they were helping Ukraine with information a few months after Russian invasion. Despite that, Russia never declared war to these countries at the time, judging that it was not important enough for that. So, what is your point?
    1
  7.  @peturadunga  i have answered your question. Twice : there is no need of a more direct involvement of western personnel. As far as we know, there is nothing new for months and no reason to think it is different now. There are probably some « advisers », but not more than one or two years ago. I would say that there are probably less now, as the Ukrainians have learned how to use and maintain most of the weapon systems they have been supplied with.
    1
  8. No.
    1
  9. No. It is not accurate enough.
    1
  10.  @enriquelaroche5370  Even if it is true that the « target was demolished », which remains to be seen, an aircraft carrier is not a fixed site, but a moving target. There is no confirmation that these missiles were something other than standard IRBM or ICBM.
    1
  11.  @enriquelaroche5370  launching an ICBM would be considered as a nuclear attack… and booom! MAD!
    1
  12.  @enriquelaroche5370  which AC port do you think China or Russia can strike with an IRBM? The only ones are in France or the UK . And there are nuclear powers. Any launch may be considered as a nuclear threat. And don’t tell me that playing with long range missiles is a silly game. Tell that to Poutine.
    1
  13.  @enriquelaroche5370  surrender what? They invaded a country, it failed, they go home. Like many others, including the USSR, did in Indochine and Afghanistan, that simply left and never had to surrender.
    1
  14.  @enriquelaroche5370  a nuclear exchange would turn France, uk and Russia into rubbles. So what? What do you think would prevent that? Give Putin all he wants? He will ask for more and more, and never stop.
    1
  15.  @carltonbauheimer anybody can use GPS.
    1
  16.  @carltonbauheimer  - the ATACMS are from the USA, not NATO. - GPS receiver being a passive system, no one is « actively involved » - if you meant that the USA provided the missiles, yes, we know, captain Obvious. They provided also the training and the tools to use them. I suppose tha North Korea did the same with the missiles given to Russia. So what?
    1
  17.  @carltonbauheimer  NATO is an alliance. Some things are done by the alliance, some things are done by its membres independently. You being part of a golf club does not mean that all you do is in the name of the golf club! See?
    1
  18.  @carltonbauheimer  caring about « semantic » is the way to write comments that are on the point, comprehensible and, in the end, accurate and sound. Your comment is inaccurate and its soundness is so questionable.
    1
  19. @ which « real point »? That the missiles were supplied by the US, France and the UK? Yes, we know… so what? That these countries are « directly involved »? In what ? The supply of weapons? Sure. The war? No. According to international laws, there is no state of war between Russia and these countries. Poutine did not declare war, as far as I know, and he is the one who should do it if he thought that these countries were « directly involved ».
    1
  20.  @carltonbauheimer  France granted Ukraine access to its military satellites a year or two ago. NATO declared that they were giving information to Ukraine, at the same time. Nothing has changed. Of course western countries are helping Ukraine with intel, this is no secret nor new. It was not considered as a « direct involvement » by Poutine, otherwise he would have declared war at the time. So what? Why include it in todays video as its ongoing for months?
    1
  21.  @carltonbauheimer  yes… sûre… it is the other way around : you failed to convince us of your point…
    1
  22. Thank you for helping it by commenting ! It would be helpful if you could also click the like button and join the channel!
    1
  23.  @NDJ1978  downvotes are not taken in account by youtube… comments are, on the other hand!
    1