Skip to main content
Politics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

11
  • 41
    The question is framed in a one sided way that fails to establish any reason why any particular amount of military equipment should be sent to Ukraine. There is no such thing as "such a low amount" or "such a high amount" until you have some baseline to compare it to.
    – ohwilleke ♦
    Commented Jan 16, 2023 at 20:40
  • 18
    "...you have some baseline to compare it to." We could take the existing amount of tanks as baseline. 14 sounds indeed as rather low in that regard. I guess one could also formulate the question as: why not more and not sooner if more and sooner would have been possible. Of course with hindsight everything is a bit easier.
    – NoDataDumpNoContribution
    Commented Jan 16, 2023 at 22:41
  • 2
    @stackoverblown you're right and wrong at the same time. Numbers still matter. Twice as many tanks of the same type are roughly twice as valuable.
    – NoDataDumpNoContribution
    Commented Jan 17, 2023 at 18:53
  • 6
    @stackoverblown in relation to the number of atomic bombs currently in use in the war, 1 is a huge amount. In relation to what it would help Ukraine, one is probably irrelevant. So for the sake of argument, yours wasn't exactly on point.
    – DonQuiKong
    Commented Jan 17, 2023 at 20:05
  • 7
    @TimurShtatland It doesn't seem all that reasonable to compare the total number of tanks a country produced in the last 70 years, with no idea how many of those are still in operation, to the number of tanks actively being used in a particular war. (I see you edited that statistic into the question.)
    – NotThatGuy
    Commented Jan 18, 2023 at 9:11