• ladicius@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m very sure Ukraine will use those missiles to solely hit military targets unlike those a-holes from ruzzia who aim at schools and hospitals and housing.

    As long as Ukraine only eliminates military targets: Give them everything they need, and more. Do it now.

    • Weirdmusic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      You know what, up till this week I was in total agreement with you. Now, I really don’t care if they use them to attack other targets.

  • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    3 months ago

    Downing Street believed to support weapons’ use but will not say so publicly amid disagreements with US

    I thought this had been the situation for a while. Didn’t they publicly back this very briefly before quickly walking it back?

    I really hope this changes and Ukraine gets full approval to do what they need to defend themselves but the headline seems misleadingly optimistic.

    Someone please jump in to tell me I’m mistaken about this though because I would absolutely love to be.

    • Saeveo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I thought this had been the situation for a while. Didn’t they publicly back this very briefly before quickly walking it back?

      Yes, Starmer said it back in early July. It sounds like the UK then looked to get agreement from the US and France before proceeding and the US have blocked it since then.

      • Overzeetop@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        3 months ago

        $1M a shot seems like a lot until you look at what goes into each one, how much development costs, and the environment it is designed for. You don’t need corruption to make these expensive. Also, the are based on 30 year old technology. Rather than being cheaper than new, they tend to be more expensive due to requiring miniature mechanisms which were cutting edge in 199x. And there are no other uses for them in their hardened configuration so you don’t get economy of scale of something like a commercial ship or board. Plus there’s a lot of paperwork and you can’t sell a single piece unless the government approves it. This is so far from a consumer item there isn’t even a way to compare costs.

        FWIW, corruption would cost roughly the same price but you’d receive a missile with shoddy components and forged paperwork. Just look at Russia’s army to see the difference in munition reliability.

    • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      Storm Shadow will not be wasted on oil refineries. They are too expensive. The better target are radars of air defense sites. Those are extremely expensive as well and hard to replace. They also can not be easily targeted by cheaper long range missiles. However more of those missiles can reach deep into Russia, when air defense is in worse shape.