[continued from parent]

• Q: What about ATACMS. Will they make a difference? A: Well, everything makes a difference, but what matters is how many and what type. Ballistic missiles not cruise missiles. Three major uses for Ukrainian long-range precision-guided weapons were (1) ground lines of communication like bridges (air-lauched cruise missiles better), (2) command-and-control points like hardened bunkers; cruise missiles also better there, (3) logistic points/ammo points for which short-range ballistic missiles like ATACMS are more-useful. Ballistic missiles can be useful for time-sensitive targets relative to cruise missiles since they reach their targets more-quickly. Most likely that Ukraine will get cluster munition version. This version is shorter-range, about 160 km. Ukraine probably most-wanted the unitary warhead version. Cluster version will put Russian forward operating bases for helicopters, forward assembly areas, and time-sensitive targets at risk. For time-sensitive targets, need to have intelligence to know what to hit. Inherent assumption that the US or other folks with ISR capability will provide information. Not sure how short the loop is for US to decide to send intel or Ukraine to decide that they want to act on it. Also, probably treated as a strategic weapon by Ukraine, under control of Ukrainian general staff, may have a lot of people in loop to make decision. All this may make it hard to use ATACMS against time-sensitive targets. Some people have argued for using ATACMS against Russian air defenses. Russia has a lot of S-300 systems; one will run out of ATACMS before Russia runs out of S-300s. Also, hitting air defense is only really especially useful if one is going to exploit this, use air power. Russia also has forward-deployed S-400s that are more-important. Good complement to existing Ukrainian abilities, especially cluster munitions aspect, doesn’t overlap much with existing capabilities. Not a game-changer on its own, though. Is a notable development.