Ultradave

They delayed things long enough that they could actually READ what was in the bill, instead of immediately voting on an unseen bill. Either that or trust McCarthy, and they already have experience at that. That's not obstructing the passage. Obstructing the passage would have been not voting for it, in which case it would not have passed. Not even close. The fire alarm thing? One guy. One idiot. Ukraine aid is going to be a tough balancing act. The next Speaker is going to have to promise the 8 to 20 rebels that there won't be any, and yet, if they try to NOT include Ukraine aid, it won't pass, because no one is going to trust a new Speaker to push a separate Ukraine aid bill after the budget, and not renege on the promise. They could, I suppose, propose both at once, so the bills are all on the docket to vote for - not sure of the exact mechanisms for all that. Basically the Speaker and his minions control what actually gets done in the House. The end result is that I have NO idea why anyone would even run for the job at this point. What a mess. Dave

Very petty, that.

Can't find any link to actual rules but this short article lays it out pretty clearly. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/03/us/politics/kevin-mccarthy-house-speaker.html

The dynamics of a Democratic House Speaker with a Republican House majority could be.... interesting. Basically nothing happens that the Speaker doesn't want to happen, and yet, he wouldn't have the majority votes without some help (which might be part of the bargain I suppose, if, and BIG if, you trust the agreement made to get there). Plan? I don't think there is a plan. Has anyone heard any member of Congress say "once we get rid of McCarthy, we'll nominate Rep. XYZ for Speaker?" Hah, now that they have him out, getting someone else in is going to be tough. McCarthy only got in by the skin of his teeth as the candidate they could hold their noses and vote for after he promised them the Moon. Now what? Someone similar who will have to do the same thing. Meanwhile the budget clock is ticking, and no Ukraine aid bill until there is a Speaker (for those not in the US, no business can be conducted until a Speaker is elected). Dave

Well, with CANDU reactors, the nuclear material is not an issue, other than the NPT of course, and all the safeguards agreements and monitoring that have been agreed to. Dave

I didn't realize it was that high, but not surprising, really, when you think about it. The ATGMs of the day that opposed the Israelis needed to be flown to the target by an operator. The defense against that was to spot the launch, and then hit it the position with suppressing fire immediately - MGs, tank rounds, whatever is handy. Artillery would be too slow. Standard tactics of the day, both there, and against any other Russian equipped force. So it wasn't *too* hard to spoil the aim of the ATGM operator, while a tank round is roughly instantaneous. Dave

Good point. Resolved in the Senate negotiations anyway. There is broad support for Ukraine in the Senate, and I don't think that's going to change, even to placate the House crazies and get something passed. Dave

Yes, McCarthy is no leader. At all. And that is not a partisan remark. He just is not up to the job he's in. It's like the title of Speaker was his goal, but not performing the role of Speaker. I gather from remarks made that Democrats are not eager to prop up McCarthy. It may come to that though, if the alternative is such chaos that Democrats feel they just have to in order to avoid a lot of damage to the public. I have to say I'd LOVE to see the sputtering and indignation from the "insurgents" if that happens. It will be epic! As a general comment, there are a LOT of politicians that need to be reminded of their oath of office. Maybe they should recite THAT every day before business starts, rather than the pledge of allegiance. To stay somewhat on topic, it seems that US aid to Ukraine is still safe for the foreseeable future. Whatever happens with the above, there appears to be plenty of pro-Ukraine aid sentiment to overcome any opposition. Dave

Resolved. There is money in the Senate continuing resolution for Ukraine aid (and US disaster relief as well). Now, the real question is whether the House will even consider it for a vote that way. I don't think there is much doubt that the Senate will continue to support Ukraine. And really the House as well, EXCEPT in the House, there are ~20 who will not under any circumstance, at least as yet, and that 20 of 435 can hold up everything, since there is only a 4 seat majority. In the past, dissenters had "permission" to vote against, to satisfy their constituents, because when the votes were counted there were sufficient without the dissenters. This isn't the case now, and 20 are dictating terms to the entire 222 majority. And Speaker McCarthy is in a bad situation, of his own making. If he tries to pass the Senate bill, it may pass with Democratic help, since the Senate bill was bipartisan, but he'll be voted out of the speakership because he will supposedly have reneged on the agreement made with the 20 to get to be Speaker. If he tries to put forward his own resolution, and includes ALL the demands of the 20, it *might* pass, but will NEVER pass the Senate. It might not even pass the House, because there are plenty of Republicans who don't support the positions that the vocal 20 member minority hold. I'm using 20 because it's *about* that many and fluctuates day to day - we all know who the MOST vocal minority of the minority are and they seem to hold the power, a pretty amazing spectacle for first term Congresscritters to display. Been watching all this with a feeling of both interest and horror. Not that it hasn't happened before, but in the past no one was holding the Speaker's job hostage at the same time. The Pentagon has stated that in a shutdown, aid to Ukraine would continue as a priority measure not to be interrupted. So that's good anyway. Dave

Apologies if this has already been covered but if so I missed it (not unlikely). What we are seeing in Ukraine is pretty much the first widespread and numerous usage of drones, both for observation and for attack - sniping really, even if the sniping is dropping a grenade down a turret hatch, which is pretty impressive to me. What we aren't seeing is the widespread deployment of drone countermeasures.... yet. Of course there are many types of drones, but most have some characteristics in common, such as optical sensors, a datalink, and an operator on the ground. And by their nature the smaller ones require the operator be reasonably close and not say, in Las Vegas, like some of the US UAVs. Once a force devises and deploys some countermeasures on a wide scale, this drone effectiveness/tank replacement argument may well die down a lot, with drones becoming another complementary weapon system. Could an autonomous system be developed to track and then laser blind small drones that could be mounted on a vehicle, or even small enough that individual AFVs could carry their own? A laser powerful enough to actually disable the drone might require a dedicated vehicle. Don't know - not up on my laser technology. EW capability that could scan for the drone signal (you know it's emitting VERY close to you), and jam it. And yeah, I know all about frequency hopping transmissions, but that doesn't mean there isn't an effort to follow or counteract that, at least enough to disrupt, if not negate the transmission. Can Russia develop and deploy systems like this in the midst of this war, in enough concentration to be very effective? I'm very doubtful of that. Could other countries already be working on solutions like this for the next conflict? Probably. Like tank and anti-tank weapons, it will become an another arms race, with more capable and resistant drones and more effective countermeasures against them. There is a constant similar race in the submarine world (which I'm more familiar with). Sound detection capabilities get better and better, and noise silencing technology gets better and better in order to better hide. Silencing technology is the US submarine world's most closely guarded secrets. Dave

The nice thing about being FA is that we stay out of all that branch rancor because we know we just support. In fact our DIVARTY motto was "We Support." I know on occasion moving with the barrel facing rear is as mentioned, protection from damage, especially maneuvering in close quarters like city or town streets where no enemy contact is expected. Hard to get around corners with that main gun leading the way. Hit something hard and your gun is toast. Hit something soft and the soft thing (wooden building) is toast. Let the gun follow and you can tweak the turret to follow around the corner and not swing into something. Dave

I think this is a key point about the situation. The majority (in both houses) is so tenuous, there isn't room for "permission" being given to vote against something to make the points of the extremists. They need every single vote or nothing will happen. I'm not as optimistic that a shutdown will be averted, based on the inability to even get a defense budget to the House floor so far. And at that, I defense budget that probably won't pass the House, and definitely won't pass the Senate. There is little time left to pass a continuing resolution, as a minimum. And if McCarthy gets one passed, it will have to be with the help of Democrats in the House, and that will be the end of his speakership, causing even more chaos before a serious budget can be passed. Ugh. Something tells me I'll be dipping into savings for expenses for a bit (even if we get it back eventually). Good to hear though that aid to Ukraine will be considered essential by the Pentagon. Dave

Excellent! Although from Russia's standpoint, not an optimal operating mode for that asset. Dave

"Leaked" Well, I am an expert with 38 years of submarine construction and testing, and as a subject matter expert I can say that that submarine is truly f-ed, FUBAR, SNAFU, scrap metal. Aren't you glad I'm here to provide you with my expert opinions? And kudos to Ukraine. Nice shot. Dave

You shouldn't need a license code for a free patch, just for DLCs that are paid. Dave

Mac OS X: (I speak Mac ) It's not the mods. In testing (yeah, I'm the tester it happens to) I've installed clean 1.07 full installer, ran the updates from 1.03 to 1.06 to 1.07, and started from 1.06 and updated to 1.07. Everything is fine until 1.07, no matter which way I do it. I have some mods and I moved them in and moved them back out - no difference. But in each case I started with a no mod clean install. It's not my OS that's doing it either. I have Sonoma Beta and @JRC58 has 13.5.3 and it happened to both of us. Also, I just updated FI with no issues at all, with or without mods (of which I have a lot for FI). There's no reason it should behave differently for FI than CW. None that I can think of anyway. The .brz file for 1.07 is indeed quite small, but that could be correct for Mac since there is no PBEM++ support for Macs, just a couple of minor graphics fixes. There are some who get the glitch, and some who don't, even among the beta testers. So - a mystery so far. Perhaps Charles will spot something. Meanwhile, for myself, I kept an installation of 1.06 for now, which works fine. One thing I haven't tried though is whether a normal PBEM would be compatible with a Windows user on 1.07. For those of you who have the glitch, I wouldn't knock yourself out trying a bunch of tricks, just reinstall 1.06 and you'll be fine. John can provide anyone with a link to it. And you should be able to put your mods back in 1.06 with no problems. Dave PS - For Windows users, just as general information, on Macs EVERYTHING is installed in the application directory - the app, saves, incoming/outgoing emails, mods, etc. There isn't anything at all in the user's home directory (except the license buried deep somewhere). Different looking installation than that for Windows.

No, don't think so. Pathfinders are Army and they also do that job. We had a Pathfinders school at Fort Liberty (nee Bragg). These guys were Air Force and jumped in as a team of 2 or 3 and set up the beacons and smoke pots on the DZ and established contact with the Air Force aircraft. It may be that in my day the Pathfinders did it for Army based Das and LZs and the USAF guys when it was AF transport. It's been a long time. The name has probably changed over the years.. When I had a biopsy the anaesthesiologist was one of those Air Force guys. We got on that subject because he asked about my Typhoid vaccine allergy (which I found out about in the Army). Usual conversation of where did you serve, etc. When he found out I was former 82d, he piped up about the advance team that he used to do. And I thought I was nuts being a paratrooper! Got nothing on those guys. Dave

I will also admit to being partly guilty myself (and my friends) of some "elitism". I am a life member of the 82d Airborne Association. We have our annual picnic Saturday for the Greater Hartford (CT) Chapter. Everyone is a paratrooper, from WW2 veterans, of which we still have just a couple, to recent returnees from Afghanistan, and everyone in between. You are a paratrooper. None of us care when, where, or how, what job, enlisted, officer. You are a paratrooper. It's differentiated between those who went to Airborne School and got their wings, which is certainly an accomplishment and something to be proud of, to those of us who served on "jump status" in a paratrooper unit. We have members male and female from the 82d, 101st, and 11th Abn Divisions and a couple of the independent brigades, plus Green Berets, plus even a couple Marine Force Recon guys. All paratroopers. Oh, and one USAF Close Combat Team guy (I think that's what they used to call it - the guys who jump in first and set up the drop zone for us - you want to talk about guys with big you know whats). Can't find what they call it now. It's like someone mentioned about the Marines. You are a Marine. For us, you are a paratrooper. It's more a shared experience equalizer than anything. Dave

I did say "supposed", however, REFORGER? I'll say come on to that. That was to reinforce NATO (REinforce FORces in GERmany), in the case of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Nothing else. It was practice for the supporting our allies part of what I said, and rehearsal for a defensive stand that thankfully never came. Dave

Pet peeve (and not at all aimed at you, or at Kevin, who you were quoting). I really do not like the pervasive use of the terms "warriors" and "warfighters" that many, mostly in government or the military upper echelons, refer to service members. Statements like "We have to give our warfighters the tools to do their jobs" (which is another thing - sounds like we are talking about carpenters or plumbers). It's like some macho thing to me. Maybe I'm an old fogie (I guess I am at this point!) Maybe it's just me and I'm the outlier, but it seems much too belligerent for a country that supposedly uses its military for self-protection, and the aid and support of other countries. I have no idea if this is common in other countries, but I find it very grating. Dave

To recover that "vision" and put it into effective action of some kind, the US Congress needs to take a deep breath and decide to work toward some common goals and agreements. They exist, and the Senate is better in this regard than the House. Anything substantive takes both houses, though. I'd say "the US" DOES know better but the current atmosphere is so partisan that bipartisan agreements just aren't happening, even though both parties essentially agree on something (and not just Ukraine, other topics as well). Dave

Excellent summary. All this and Putin still decides, "Ah, what the Hell, I'm doing it anyway" What could be done that wasn't? Put 3 US divisions in Ukraine before he attacked (not happening)? Doing anything AFTER he attacked, like US airpower to try to neutralize Russia's military, or massive Tomahawk strikes into Russia itself, is just insanity (both ideas have been floated by various people). There's really no good way to stop someone like that. Dave

It is. Yes. and yes we finished the WitE. The highlight I recall, was me getting a whole Russian tank army surrounded on frozen Lake Ladoga and unable to move. Then spring came. Oops. Much glee and laughter from the German players as my tank corps sank.

Played the original War in the East on a Zenith 8088-2 PC years ago (many years). Never really got into the newer WitE, but I love WitW, and have a number of satisfying PBEM games of that, from both Allied and Axis side. From the Allied side, the planning and execution of invasions is fun, involved and nail-biting when they are executed. The air war in WitW is more involved too (or can be - you can automate most of it if you want). Haven't played it in a while, but I really like it. There are some good player aid charts for it that give you the basics of how to do almost everything important in the game. Dave

Not sure. Kind of a gradual progression. Started way back in Junior High School with AH Midway, Jutland, Blitzkrieg, AK. Lots of SPI titles from the mags, lots more AH games, PanzerBlitz, Panzer Leader, Squad Leader and its add ons. Never played ASL. Had a semester long game of War in the East set up in a guy's dorm room in college. Took the whole semester between all of our classes. 5 of us played different roles. Also had a LOT of 1:1200 metal naval miniatures, with rulesets Kriegspiel, Seapower 1, 2, 3, and Harpoon miniatures. Had the first Close Combat, but it didn't do much for me. Found CMBO on the shelf at the local game shop and was hooked. Sad when the later titles were PC only and glad they came back to the Mac (been a Mac user since the mid later 80s). Today, I play mostly, CM, CMO, Flashpoint Campaigns, and some sports games (OOTP Baseball on line, and some Action PC! games solo). Dave