No, it's trajectory, let's suggest a few launchers are covering an area, creating a field of fire, they are possibly being detonated like flashbangs, or countermeasures, prior to collision, the explosion causes the incoming missile to be brought down, and also firing off all the rockets to stop one. Literally what they did. Then they inserted fictious numbers of what they downed. Because they're begging for more rockets. They emptied out dozens of rockets depleting their supply, it takes how long to reload. Then they claimed they shot down loads with them. Honk.

Outside of this is the trajectory and tracking their signature. Now all the press is claiming the Russian scientists who made the hypersonics committed treason. It means they sold off key blueprints, causing competing systems to identify them. Now the trajectory is being calibrated by opposing anti-aircraft?

I am inclined to agree with radioactive something left larger atmosphere traces. I am not sure why the reading spiked prior to the explosions. How are encased shells radioactive? The debate was and is they leave traces on firing and impact. In a shell being handled and loaded, how, sounds real stupid. But exploded can possibly leave readings if that's what it was there?

Debate on artillery systems, Russia has been superior in this conflict. Look at map. But it doesn't mean much if it's just an artillery war.

Factories producing munitions and armaments are faster increasing their outputs globally for both sides.

My point was and is Nato have also been upgrading. There are much larger orders outside of the charity donations. Examples of unlimited or billions spent on rockets and ammo and drones. So what's building them? If they empty out stocks giving them to charity. They're replacing them with what. Same stock or upgrades?

No, it's trajectory, let's suggest a few launchers are covering an area, creating a field of fire, they are possibly being detonated like flashbangs, or countermeasures, prior to collision, the explosion causes the incoming missile to be brought down, and also firing off all the rockets to stop one. Literally what they did. Then they inserted fictious numbers of what they downed. Because they're begging for more rockets. They emptied out dozens of rockets depleting their supply, it takes how long to reload. Then they claimed they shot down loads with them. Honk.

I am inclined to agree with radioactive something left larger atmosphere traces. I am not sure why the reading spiked prior to the explosions. How are encased shells radioactive? The debate was and is they leave traces on firing and impact. In a shell being handled and loaded, how, sounds real stupid. But exploded can possibly leave readings if that's what it was there?

Debate on artillery systems, Russia has been superior in this conflict. Look at map. But it doesn't mean much if it's just an artillery war.

Factories producing munitions and armaments are faster increasing their outputs globally for both sides.

My point was and is Nato have also been upgrading. There are much larger orders outside of the charity donations. Examples of unlimited or billions spent on rockets and ammo and drones. So what's building them? If they empty out stocks giving them to charity. They're replacing them with what. Same stock or upgrades?

No, it's trajectory, let's suggest a few launchers are covering an area, creating a field of fire, they are possibly being detonated like flashbangs, or countermeasures, prior to collision, the explosion causes the incoming missile to be brought down, and also firing off all the rockets to stop one. Literally what they did. Then they inserted fictious numbers of what they downed. Because they're begging for more rockets. They emptied out dozens of rockets depleting their supply, it takes how long to reload. Then they claimed they shot down loads with them. Honk.

I am inclined to agree with radioactive something left larger atmosphere traces. I am not sure why the reading spiked prior to the explosions. How are encased shells radioactive? The debate was and is they leave traces on firing and impact. In a shell being handled and loaded, how, sounds real stupid. But exploded can possibly leave readings if that's what it was there?

Debate on artillery systems, Russia has been superior in this conflict. Look at map. But it doesn't mean much if it's just an artillery war.

Factories producing munitions are faster increasing their outputs globally for both sides.

My point was and is Nato have also been upgrading. There are much larger orders outside of the charity donations. Examples of unlimited or billions spent on rockets and ammo and drones. So what's building them? If they empty out stocks giving them to charity. They're replacing them with what. Same stock or upgrades?

No, it's trajectory, let's suggest a few launchers are covering an area, creating a field of fire, they are possibly being detonated like flashbangs, or countermeasures, prior to collision, the explosion causes the incoming missile to be brought down, and also firing off all the rockets to stop one. Litrally what they did. Then they inserted fictious numbers of what they downed. Because they're begging for more rockets. They emptied out dozens of rockets depleting their supply, it takes how long to reload. Then they claimed they shot down loads with them. Honk.

I am inclined to agree with radioactive something left larger atmosphere traces. I am not sure why the reading spiked prior to the explosions. How are encased shells radioactive? The debate was and is they leave traces on firing and impact. In a shell being handled and loaded, how, sounds real stupid. But exploded can possibly leave readings if that's what it was there?

Debate on artillery systems, Russia has been superior in this conflict. Look at map. But it doesn't mean much if it's just an artillery war.

Factories producing munitions are faster increasing their outputs globally for both sides.

My point was and is Nato have also been upgrading. There are much larger orders outside of the charity donations. Examples of unlimited or billions spent on rockets and ammo and drones. So what's building them? If they empty out stocks giving them to charity. They're replacing them with what. Same stock or upgrades?

No, it's trajectory, let's suggest a few launchers are covering an area, creating a field of fire, they are possibly being detonated like flashbangs, or countermeasures, prior to collision, the explosion causes the incoming missile to be brought down, and also firing off all the rockets to stop one. Litrally what they did. Then they inserted fictious numbers of what they downed. Because they're begging for more rockets. They emptied out dozens of rockets depleting their supply, it takes how long to reload. Then they claimed they shot down loads with them. Honk.

I am inclined to agree with radioactive something left larger atmosphere traces. I am not sure why the reading spiked prior to the explosions. How are encased shells radioactive? The debate was and is they leave traces on firing and impact. In a shell being handled and loaded, how, sounds real stupid. But exploded can possibly leave readings if that's what it was there?

Debate on artillery systems, Russia has been superior in this conflict. Look at map. But it doesn't mean much if it's just an artillery war.

Factories producing munitions are faster increasing their outputs globally for both sides.

My point was and is Nato have also been upgrading. There are much larger orders outside of the charity donations. Examples of unlimited of billions spent on rockets and ammo and drones. So what's building them? Yes if they empty out stocks giving them to charity. They're replacing them with what. Same stock or upgrades?

No, it's trajectory, let's suggest a few launchers are covering an area, creating a field of fire, they are possibly being detonated like flashbangs, or countermeasures, prior to collision, the explosion causes the incoming missile to be brought down, and also firing off all the rockets to stop one. Litrally what they did. Then they inserted fictious numbers of what they downed. Because they're begging for more rockets. They emptied out dozens of rockets depleting their supply, it takes how long to reload. Then they claimed they shot down loads with them. Honk.

I am inclined to agree with radioactive something left larger atmosphere traces. I am not sure why the reading spiked prior to the explosions. How are encased shells radioactive? The debate was and is they leave traces on firing and impact. In a shell being handled and loaded, how, sounds real stupid. But exploded can possibly leave readings if that's what it was there?

Debate on artillery systems, Russia has been superior in this conflict. Look at map. But it doesn't mean much if it's just an artillery war.

Factories producing munitions are faster increasing their outputs globally for both sides.

My point was and is Nato have also been upgrading. There are much larger orders outside of the charity donations. Examples of unlimited of billions spent on rockets and ammo and drones. So what's building them?