RegalBeagle @[email protected]

@CatLord @Bad_Banner @IAMAL_PHARIUS The original figures are way back in a blogpost here: https://simplicius76.substack.com/
I probably made a mistake as looking around, the figure was likely hypersonics in general, not specifically Kinzhals. This report puts Tomahawk production ~2.2k/y, but this fluctuates and is old: https://www.navair.navy.mil/node/13136 (assuming Raytheon meets contract deliverables...)

Russia has over a dozen hypersonic systems deployed today while the US none.

@7666 @Nimbius666 Certainly easier to tell that to management vs actually creating a testing suite.

@InvictusManeo @Bad_Banner @IAMAL_PHARIUS @TrevorGoodchild The US wanted to ensure EU and RF never normalize relations to preserve US hegemony. Due to sheer fucking hubris, they instead made RF and China buddies, drove OPEC into BRICS+, de-industrialized the EU, de-militarized NATO, and now have to also deal with a jewish doomsday cult that controls nuclear weapons. I don't think GAE could have fucked it harder if they tried.

@professionalbigot69 But they're covered in shit and no one wants them.

@Nimbius666 I think a robust test suite helps with this. I think a well designed test explains code better than comments ever will and also gives immediate feedback on how changes affect function, which is invaluable for new team members onboarding.

@caekislove @nugger @Bad_Banner @IAMAL_PHARIUS @Spingebill There's a non-zero chance this is actually true.

@caekislove @Bad_Banner @IAMAL_PHARIUS Lol, u funneh

@CatLord @Bad_Banner @IAMAL_PHARIUS I find it more helpful to look at the larger picture. The biggest takeaway is the maneuver warfare is out and attrition warfare is back. RF can outproduce US/NATO in artillery shells, missiles, tanks, and drones. The number of Kinzhal hypersonics RF has launched is greater than the number of US Tomahawks that have ever been made since the 70s. The US doesn't even have a hypersonic prototype. US/NATO runs out of ammo vs a peer adversary in a few weeks.

@transgrammaractivist @Bad_Banner @IAMAL_PHARIUS @Spingebill Have a nice day

@transgrammaractivist @Bad_Banner @IAMAL_PHARIUS @Spingebill I'll engage one last time, but you're splitting hairs. I define a US loss as the US offering terms of surrender and another state actor accepting them. My position is any nuclear capable nation will never allow another nation to dictate terms of surrender.

@transgrammaractivist @Bad_Banner @IAMAL_PHARIUS @Spingebill We took our ball and went home. Giving up is not losing. The Taliban, Koreans, Vietnamese, etc were never in a position to dictate terms of surrender. ZOG has painted itself into a corner. They are all in on rebuilding the temple and triggering the apocalypse. We will all get to see how that plays out for them.

@transgrammaractivist @Bad_Banner @IAMAL_PHARIUS @Spingebill Depends on if you count taking your ball and going home as a loss.

@transgrammaractivist @Bad_Banner @IAMAL_PHARIUS Currently, I agree, but our trajectories are different. Russia and the BRICS+ nations are ascending while US/NATO/EU are in decline. US needs war to keep the ascending powers under their thumb.

@Paultron @Bad_Banner @IAMAL_PHARIUS @nugger @Spingebill I sleep better at night knowing our nukes are built by the cheapest contractor. 'Mil spec' is the classic military oxymoron.

@Bad_Banner @IAMAL_PHARIUS @Spingebill A nuclear state backed into existential crisis WILL use everything at their disposal to maintain power. I don't think we'll see controlled demolition of the RF like what happened with the USSR as the cultural and political zeitgeists are completely different. The Cuban missile crisis analogy also explains the theological differences. US used to be a Christian nation, while USSR where atheists, but now the opposite is true for both countries.