fireship4
-
Posts
500 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by fireship4
-
-
15 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Ah, ok I see where you are going.
I think not! It was a dig at your verbosity, and I recieved an essay in return!
15 hours ago, The_Capt said:The Millennials and whatever the hell they are calling the new ones never grew up in a mass existential conflict environment - the closest they ever get is watching Oppenheimer.
Again, the Millenial cadre starts in 1981, the oldest were ten years old or so when the USSR dissolved.
15 hours ago, The_Capt said:They talk a good game on climate change and economic woes but they grew up with "bad things happening over there to other people."
Something like 45% is the number of Millenials deployed by the US in OIF/Afghanistan in 2010 [1]. The oldest Millenials were 20 on 9/11.
-
1 minute ago, The_Capt said:
Which one?
This thread! I don't know how much can be said about this and that generation, the economics and culture was different, yes; who's had it easier? Boomers, I've heard. The cycle of dutiful sons and daughters to angry parents to resentful kids goes on. The last few haven't had it easy in any case, though that might be a parochial view. Those moving into the middle class in various countries might be doing alright.
On a slight tangent, looking at the US age distribution, it's pretty flat compared to the others.
-
3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
I so don't care...just get them out of my f#cking basement.
You need it to store your thesis? Must be roomy.
6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:Yes, but it is still fun to disparage that generation even as they grow to be more like us wiser people.
They are 26-43. I don't see much wiseness around above or below.
-
5 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
I am a Gen X, caught between two overly entitled and self-righteous generations - one we are putting into homes, the other through university.
The youngest Millenials finished their first two years of university about 8 years ago... the oldest, 23 years ago.
-
8 minutes ago, poesel said:
I guess you think about that kilowatt class, spinning things?
You may already know but I think he was just referring to the fact that radar has to go out and come back to a reciever for it to see the target, but only has to reach the target to be detected, which will be at a longer range for all obvious cases.
Various technologies would likely alter this calculous, having recievers forward and emitters back, various stealthy scanning modes, quantum nonsense, etc.
-
On 5/10/2024 at 11:03 PM, Motorola7734 said:
Right, so I read a very similar post last night and I did manage to record sound for ak74. Clipped it out in audacity as mono and at 44100HZ and put it in Z folder as .WAV file. It did replace the sound but even with denoising it in audacity it is just white noise. Any idea why?
Here are the properties of "gun 5 ak-74 0.wav" I've been using myself, in case you have a mismatch somewhere.
-
14 hours ago, FancyCat said:
A frozen front line without a ceasefire is not a win for Ukraine or the West. A situation that presumably allows Russia to missile strike and drone attack into Ukraine's cities is one that will result in Ukraine's slow bleed out thru civilian morale collapse. I assume that a situation without ceasefire being agreed means ukraine is unable to threaten Russia with enough retaliation to bring Russia away from contently lobbing missiles. Mind you pre-2022 ceasefire and negotiations were in much different contexts than today. We have no idea what Russia's breaking point to begin negotiations to formalize a freeze is and not a form of surrender or Western loss.
It is therefore essential to define win in terms of a maximal, seeking quick as possible goal, in order to best pressure Russia towards peace, to best prep western governments to aspire and support Ukraine with maximum aid and long term awareness of potential Russian renewal. (Things like arguing over ammo procurement should have never become a issue to the result now where the West looks weak as hell as Russia makes gains and can argue it can make strategic gains eventually, if our goal is to stop the war, anything that allows Russia to convince itself it can win is a failure)(lack of urgency is a failure)
The slow drip of aid, the reactive position of the West to Russia, is a failure. At every step, Russia has escalated, has increased its capabilities, has continued to bet that it can exhaust the West. Instead of providing offramps, Russia sees it as Western weakness to take advantage of.
The fear of Russian collapse, which characterized many foreign policy doves including Jake Sullivan in the Biden administration has resulted in the measures Russia has taken advantage of. It's necessary to no longer concern with Russian collapse (which I don't think has ever been a possibility in hindsight, if you forgot, at every step of escalation Russia has sought to warn of Russian collapse (I include nuclear weapons use as a collapse scenario, as only a hard pressed Russia would want to open Pandora's box) and right now it looks like Russia was stalling (obviously). If anything we need, the West needs to concern itself with Ukrainian collapse and to operate accordingly to prevent it. Accordingly, we must signal to Russia that it's maximal goal is impossible. Certainly the present situation indicates Russia still looks for its maximal goal. Holding up aid for months is certainly not helping the mindset of a dictator who started the full scale invasion in the delusion it would succeed quickly and painlessly.
What does disregarding Russia's potential collapse mean in reality? Well for one thing, the restrictions on Western weapons use in Russia, Germany acting oh so scared of hurting Russian land with a missile as cluster munitions land in Odesa and France being exceedingly selfish procuring ammo are just some behaviors that Putin may be able to take solace in.
14 hours ago, FancyCat said:As for why espouse the rhetoric of "total victory" by the West, well for one thing, aside from that brief stalling period, Russian peace demands and signalling has been maximal. No reason for the West to concede ground. As far as I'm aware of, we have terms from Russia being: the removal of the current Ukrainian government, the annexation of 4 regions into Russia, the blocking of Ukraine into NATO or EU, the demobilization of the Ukrainian military, the formalization of Russian sovereignty over Crimea. At least. There's that drunken idiot thinking of Odesa. Idiot or not, Russian rhetoric remains maximal.
There is no reason to speak rhetorically of anything less than the restoration of full Ukrainian territorial sovereignty over its 1991 borders and the intent of Western aid to support such goals. There is no reason to speak cautiously regarding Western weapons being used inside Russia as they end UN arms embargoes on North Korea and Iran and fire from Russia into all of Ukraine.
No reason to be cautious in rhetoric as Russian jamming affects the Eastern flank of NATO.
12 hours ago, The_Capt said:So this post and the one above it are what we like to call “losing the bubble”. You have let your passion for Ukraine cloud objective strategic thinking to the point that you are proposing a denial of reality to insert one of your own that matches that passion. In blunt terms, if you were on my staff I would be thinking you need a vacation and maybe a posting away for awhile.
1. We cannot simply discount/avoid/wave away the risks of a full on Russian political and social collapse. First off it is not “impossible” or even improbable given we have a rigid autocratic political mechanism that has been under significant strain for some time now. Russia has collapsed in the past (twice in the past century and a bit) and can do so again.
2. The consequences of a Russian collapse cannot simply be waived away either. At best we get a stable regime quickly grabbing power so that the centralized control apparatus stays in place. That regime will need to 1) have clean enough hands to do an honest deal with, and 2) be supportive in stopping this war. That is a tall order. Follow on scenarios of a Russian collapse and its impacts get worse from there and we have gone into them many times. You are essentially so gripped with the Ukrainian cause that you have simply stated “ignore them” with neither proof or logic on why to do so beyond “well it hasn’t happened yet, so it will never happen”.
3. By your metrics Ukrainian security is not guaranteed outside of a full Russian collapse and regime change. Nothing would stop Russia from lobbing missiles even if it was forced back to 2014 lines. So we are back to “we need a full Russian collapse to ‘win’ but ignore the consequences of that collapse because = ‘love Ukraine’.” That makes no sense nor does it address the scenarios where a collapsed Russia poses as greater risk to Ukraine than what they are dealing with now.
4. There are plenty examples of frozen conflict where an enduring peace and security were guaranteed: Korea, Cyprus and Former Yugoslavia, to name a few. Like Israel right now, there is always risk of reemergence of warfare but we can manage that. So immediately writing off any and all other peace scenarios is not only extremist narrative, it is dangerously reductive thinking. This is not how high levels of diplomacy, defence and security or economics think about the world, it is how college students on a campus do.
5. Your position and thesis essentially start with a conclusion and then build a logic model theory of success that only supports that conclusion. Ukraine must have total victory, all other outcomes are defeats. Further the West must support Ukraine in this venture to the point that it will risk the total political and social collapse of a nuclear power. We are to sidestep all that risk for Ukraine. What happens if we get to 2014 lines and Russia does not quit? Do we need to go into Russia proper? This nearly happened in Korea/China in 1950, this was how MacArther talked himself into nuclear weapons and a massive Chinese reaction.
6. We all support Ukraine and want a victory here. But..and you really need to sit down and think about this…Ukraine is damned important, but it is not that important. We are not going to start WW3 over Ukraine - even as we skirt around it. We would be talking hundreds of millions of deaths, even if the thing stayed conventional. We have 8 billion people on this planet and keeping them all alive takes a lot of energy and resources. We built a highly complex and integrated system to keep the whole dance going. One war breaks out between Ukraine and Russia and we already have people starving to death in Africa. Imagine a full on conflagration that drags in NATO. Iran and possibly China. I am sorry but we could easily go with plan A, which was likely the plan on 24 Feb 22: continue to support Ukrainian resistance, fall back to NATO lines, drop a new Iron Curtain, and fund the hell out of NATO - in fact there are likely big winners in this scenario who know it. We won the First Cold War, we can take our chances on a Second.
So, no, total 2014 lines are not the only victory in this war by a long shot. In fact those territorial lines might not even mean victory if they were attainable. We are very likely looking at a stop line, like in 2014, somewhere in the middle. Then we will get some sort of shaky ceasefire that we will need to exploit, quickly. We need to set the conditions to strategically deny Ukraine from Russia. We know Russia can be deterred, this is why we do not have deep strikes into Poland happening. We will need to move that deterrence line. We will likely have to pound Russia until it drops its ridiculous negotiating position and we can land on something more reasonable. Whether that will take a full on collapse is unknown, we can only hope if it does that we are looking at a soft collapse of political position and not social controls within Russia.
Finally, framing the war the way you have supports Russia. You are making this war nearly unwinnable via these maximalist rhetoric. As such, a reader of this thread could easily walk away agreeing with you but arriving at a very different conclusion - unwinnable war = GTFO, because we have already seen this movie twice in the last 20 years. Which is exactly what Russia wants.
You have narrowed down the acceptable narrative only to those ardent extremist viewpoints that agree with you. By leaving no middle ground you violate a core component of war: negotiation. There is no negotiation in your position and that immediately sets off warning bells. We hear this everyday now coming from all sorts of corners over so many issues. I vehemently disagree with your analysis, narrative and conclusions based on this fact alone.
FancyCat, edited for concision:
- A drawn-out war is bad for Ukraine.
- We don't know what might bring Russia to ceasefire negotiations.
- The best way to bring them to the table is to fight to win the war.
- Russia will keep the war going if it is to their advantage.
- The west is not fighting to win, Russia is taking advantage of Western lack of commitment.
- Russia is using Western fears of Russian collapse and nuclear war to it's advantage, actively promoting such a narrative for it's benefit rather than because it is a realistic one.
- Russia seems to be pursuing maximal goals. The west must signal that these cannot be achieved.
- Why should the west make concessions as Russia does not. Russia does not offer a negotiation, rather demands surrender, disarmament and fomalisation of annexed land
The_Capt, edited for concision:
Preamble: You are ignoring reality. The best becomes the enemy of the good. We have a phrase for that in Army.
- The Russian regime might collapse.
- This would be a risk.
- You think the only way to win is for the Russia to collapse.
- Russia doesn't need to collapse for there to be peace.
- You think Ukraine must have total victory and anything else is defeat. This is holding you back.
- (6.1) WW3 would be bad, Ukraine is not worth that. War is costly. We can simultaniously support Ukrainian resistance and pull back to a new iron curtain behind which could sit a well funded NATO.
- (6.2) Maximal goals are not the only form of victory. We are looking at a ceasefire scenario with half of Ukraine in Russian hands.
- (6.3) We must fight to achieve a better negotiating position, this might require Russia to collapse.
- (6.4) Your argument helps the enemy, by making the war unwinnable, and might encourage people to give up support if it does not achieve total vicory. This is what Russia wants.
I feel simply summarising the main points of the exchange as I have here should suffice as a critique. It took me an hour or so.
-
10 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Essentially the young man is saying that as soon as “others fight and die for his own nation”, he is eager to return home.
Before we comdemn him from afar, let's remember he is 18, would he have somewhere to live? Where is his family home, is it still standing, is it in occupied territory? Would he be given a job in the army immediately? Would it help support the rest of his family (in Germany)? Can he help Ukraine in other ways? Maybe he should have help abroad to renew his passport maybe not, but surely we can commend bravery of some without handing out white feathers to the rest.
-
10 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Dear Gawd
St. Bernard's fire...
-
13 hours ago, paraloid said:
He's also written a book about command in WW2 (called Command IIRC)!
Not surprised. I listened to the first episode of the podcast today and it's worth a go for anyone who likes WWII history. There's a decent enough chance he's played CM even. He might even be perusing this conversation, as yet unaware he's dunking his tie in his bitter.
-
Al Murray the pub landlord has a history podcast?!
-
34 minutes ago, Sojourner said:
... and I suspect some radar technician's wives have some pretty powerful microwave ovens.
Turkey... turkey... ah. 15 minutes on STT.
-
6 minutes ago, Astrophel said:
Surely there should be a retirement age for people claiming to be world leaders.
It's the pope... you might as well get rid of the red shoes. Shout out to The Young Pope, great series.
-
28 minutes ago, Kinophile said:
Disconnected Old (Whichever Ethnicity) Men.
Ageist & sexist
heheh
17 minutes ago, Fernando said:Pope Francisco is not Italian, but Argentine. He was born and he lived in Argentina until he was elected Pope.
sipo, es verdad pero:
QuotePope Francis granted an interview to Radio Télévision Suisse (RTS), a Swiss public station broadcasting in French, a portion of which was released on Saturday afternoon.
The full interview with Lorenzo Buccella of the cultural programme “Cliché” was recorded in early February and will air on the Swiss TV station on March 20.
suggests the interviewer may have been Italian/the interview conducted in Italian.
EDIT: Sorry, somehow I thought you meant about the interview language, yes you are right my comment made it look like I thought the pope was Italian, I just didn't think hard enough about it, it was in my brain somewhere I'm sure. In any case being white only being a recent thing according to some goes for South Americans too.
-
16 minutes ago, Kinophile said:
Not apparently, but he did so in a recorded interview.
Since he's speaking in Italian, I was hedging my bets, also world leaders can be somewhat "clarificative" to coin a phrase. What they really mean, their eventual position, is the clarification:
QuoteOn Saturday night, the Vatican spokesman, Matteo Bruni, immediately clarified that the pope meant “cease-fire and negotiation,” not surrender, when he said white flag, a universal symbol for giving up.
EDIT:
16 minutes ago, Kinophile said:Disconnected Old White Man
Italians barely got a generation being white in some people's eyes before succumbing to this racist meme... not that I'm overly sensitive about it here and there but on the whole it gets tiresome.
-
Dear oh dear the meme defense network spun up pretty quick regarding some comments the pope apparently made vis a vis Ukraine and negotiation:
Quote
-
5 hours ago, Kinophile said:
Most BMP-2 are the BMP-2(K)
I thought that was the command version?
-
9 hours ago, Harmon Rabb said:
A video and some images near Avdiivka.
Extremely disturbing for those who would like to avoid such things.
With regard to:
8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:With great regret, I have permanently banned Zeleban from the Forum.
In case misapprehension caused his ban, I should say it's at least possible his post:
13 hours ago, Zeleban said:Your words are similar to the words of a man who spent many hours at the corrupt Ukrainian border in the hope of delivering humanitarian aid to suffering Ukrainians, fighting thousands of corrupt Ukrainian officials who are doing their best to prevent him from carrying out his good mission. I see so much pain and suffering in your posts. I'm truly sorry for you
...was a sincere expression of regret on realising the other poster had tried to help Ukraine and had failed due to problems with corruption/bribery, and was not just an antagonistic internet warrior. Much can get lost between translation and the lack of context. It's right on the edge of plausibility but worth clarifying.
-
~Nevermind~
Edit: to clarify, I had a second look and realised I didn't see what I thought I had in a previous image.
-
2 hours ago, Kinophile said:
https://twitter.com/anno1540/status/1762413281933709718?t=p1K73kamQpdNPgK7p9QpfQ&s=19
Singing the CV90s praises. The barracuda coating works.
Western tech living up to the promises.
Quote from the translation:
QuoteIn the summer, two gays drove two T-90s at our vehicle and did not spare the gunpowder to destroy our vehicle , but it didn't work.
Lol
-
On 2/21/2024 at 9:09 PM, Haiduk said:
UKR reenacting community lost two guys at once, reenactors of WWII Brits
Here they are both during pre-war reenacting event
RIP
Without prejudice, out of academic interest, the flag is not a proper Union Jack, and the rifle is a Mosin.
-
4 hours ago, Haiduk said:
dolboyebizm [I can't translate this in Englisg equivalent - it means "enormously fu...g stupid way of decision making or a deed].
Perhaps: "Delboyism"?
Derrick "Del-boy" Trotter, British classic sitcom icon, cockney who sells stolen goods:
EDIT: He even claims to support Chelsea.
-
1 hour ago, dan/california said:
or four inches
Uh oh...
-
On 2/20/2024 at 4:08 AM, Offshoot said:
Some analysis on the Battle of Irpin River (Feb-March 2022) by the British Army Review (54 page PDF). As well as the historical analysis it looks like it would be valuable for campaign designers.
I found it on Mick Ryan's twitter
Available from https://chacr.org.uk (The Centre for Historical Analysis and Conflict Research, a think tank established for the British Army) as a .pdf
heheh
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by fireship4
Out of about 65 Million male Millenials [2], it's about 3.4% of the 17+ males. The approximately 43% of the deployed that were Gen X make up 2.85% of their fighting age males. 3.83% if you just count 30-34 year-olds (keeping within the Army enlistment age cap of 35).
I concede if you mean WW3, but as I said the oldest of them spent 10 years in the same boat, and [I'd guess] the generation on the whole has been at war [for more of their lives] than the last two. The last [high casualty] war before OIF/OEF was Korea I suppose.
Content to leave the subject now that I've answered your question and said my piece. I had edited it onto my last post, but put it here in case that doesn't activate the quote alarm and it gets lost in the torrent.