NukeAGayWhale4Jesus

It seems to me that the U.S. could end this any time by supplying Ukraine with the 300-km-range HIMARS rockets. Ukraine could use them to take out, say, one Russian ship docked in Crimea every day, until Russia either withdraws or has no navy left.

I understand why the U.S. waited. Some combination of

• Needing to be sure Ukraine won't use these rockets to attack Russian territory. Ukraine has been very good about this.

• Needing to be sure that Putin won't panic and use nukes. Putin has threatened this so many times it's become meaningless. But it might be best to start with one Russian ship per week, and turn the heat up slowly.

• Wanting most of Russia's military capability to be destroyed so it's clearly no threat to its neighbors. This is pretty much accomplished. Limited additional benefit.

And yet the Pentagon isn't taking advice from an anonymous Redditor. Any idea why? Where's the flaw in my logic?

I'm very curious: why the almost universal support for Israel among both Congressmen and Senators, far surpassing the opinions of American voters? For example, in April 2016, 394 out of 435 House members signed a letter urging President Barack Obama to use U.S. veto power to block any United Nations resolutions seen as biased against Israel. (I couldn't find a list of who signed, so I don't know of you did. But that doesn't really matter to my question.)

Whatever you or I or anyone else may think about the Israeli-Palestinian situation, I think it's undeniable that there is a range of opinion among U.S. voters. On almost every other issue I can think of, a range of opinion among voters is reflected in a range of opinion among Congressmen. But not this one.

What's going on? Is there some kind of pressure to conform to certain views (apart from the normal pressure to reflect the views of constituents)? What form does this pressure take? Political donations may be one factor - AIPAC members and other do donate to candidates who support their views, and to the opponents of candidates who they deem not supportive enough. But the same is true about every issue, so that can't be the only explanation.

I'm very interested in hearing from the former members of Congress, and really NOT interested in hearing the opinions of random Redditors - I've heard them all already.

I'm not Axios, but I can answer this. Charging at home is VERY convenient - much more convenient that having to go to a gas station. Chargers are easy to install and not very expensive compared to the cost of a car. It would be a rare house that couldn't handle the extra electric load. It takes overnight instead of 30 minutes at a fast-charger, but that's not a problem. It's incredibly cheap compared to gas (or a charging station), including all losses.

Of course, that assumes you have your own garage or driveway or dedicated spot in a condo/apartment building. Otherwise, it really isn't practical.

You're right, the Pentagon did say that. I wonder if that's the real reason, though. Wouldn't they contribute more to U.S. defense by sinking Russian ships and ending the war than by sitting in stockpiles just in case? But what do I know?

That's one of the things I'm wondering about. Everything you wrote has already happened. What's the trade-off between gradually weakening Russia even further, vs. ending the war quickly?