These are U.S. Army Mobile Multiple Rocket Launch Systems
Why aren't we shipping them to Ukraine?
This is the M270 MLRS U.S. Army multiple rocket launcher system. It is mounted on an tracked M993 carrier chassis, a variation on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and can carry up to 12 guided or unguided missiles. The rockets it fires can be used for close-in artillery support, firing warheads with a range of 20 miles, or a long-range precision guided missile with a range of 90 miles. It can also fire a missile with a larger 200 pound high-explosive warhead that can be used against targets in urban or mountainous terrain.
This is the M142 HIMARS mobile artillery rocket launch system. It is mounted on a standard M1140 wheeled U.S. Army truck frame and can carry up to four surface-to-surface guided missiles with a range of between 80 and 190 miles. The rockets are 13 feet in length and 24 inches in diameter and can be mounted with warheads up to 500 pounds.
Thousands of these rocket launchers have been produced since they first came on line in the 1970. They have been improved and upgraded over the years to fire more powerful and accurate weapons. Both systems can be deployed as “stand-off” artillery delivery systems that can be fired at targets far away from their location, and because they fire guided missiles, they can be used against specific targets like individual tanks, rocket launchers, artillery pieces, or concentrations of vehicles and infantry soldiers.
Both systems could be used by the Ukrainian army to defend the cities now under attack by similar weapons being used by the Russian military.
Why are we supplying the Ukrainian army only with defensive systems that are fired by a single soldier like the Stinger anti-aircraft missile and the Javelin anti-tank missile? Why can’t we supply them with these heavy crew-served weapons systems that are mobile, extremely powerful, and deadly accurate?
These are ground-based weapons systems. NATO wouldn’t have to put military jets in the air in order for the Ukrainians to use these weapons. They both fire standard high-explosive munitions. They can be fired and moved quickly so that the Russian army would have difficulty targeting them with return-fire.
Why aren’t we supplying the Ukrainian army with weapons that are the equal of those being used against them?
My guess is that NATO is so rattled by the audacity of Putin's terror that it's at odds with itself. There is doubtless a faction willing to sacrifice Ukraine, making the same bet Britain and France made in March 1939 when Germany "annexed" Czechoslovakia. Maybe the Z on all the tanks stands for Zalenskiy, and this whole "special military operation" is a decapitation gone horribly wrong. Whatever was in Putin's mind when he started this, he's being forced to pivot. If NATO can successfully make the argument that Putin will never be satisfied, maybe they will be more stringent with their intervention. I think the sad performance of the Potemkin military diffuses the argument somewhat, which has the unfortunate effect of placing tactical nukes on the table. The concept of limited nuclear weapons has never been tested, but we may well be headed in that direction. Another awful thing about the sustained bombing of civilian population is that the images of suffering quickly cease shocking the American public (and when we talk NATO, we're really talking about the US) so the drive to remedy it gets dulled.
Because of the Polish/NATO conundrum, in which the neither the Poles nor US wants to take ownership for MiGs, out of fear of retaliation?